dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
4,000 |
Subject: Article: Sagging Telecommunications Sector Leads Nasdaq Down
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3935.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/03/2001 12:06 PM -----
Margo Reyna
04/03/2001 11:48 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephen D
Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Xi Xi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Eric Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Karen Huang/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Carmen
Perez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, William Patrick Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Article: Sagging Telecommunications Sector Leads Nasdaq Down
Sagging Telecommunications Sector Leads Nasdaq Down
By Johnathan Burns
04/03/2001
Dow Jones News Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones&Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The telecommunications sector led the Nasdaq Composite
Index down Tuesday, as investors worrying about the earnings season and a
slowdown in carrier spending hammered many stocks to new lows.
The selloff of telecommunications carriers and equipment makers was
widespread, with all of the big-name companies trading negatively.
Shares of optical component maker JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) earlier hit a
52-week low, recently trading down 11% to $14.88. Optical systems market
leader Nortel Networks Corp. (NT) also hit a 52-week low, recently trading
down 7% to $13. The day's biggest loser in the equipment space was optical
systems maker Ciena Corp. (CIEN), which hit a new low and was recently
trading down 16.5% to $35.50.
The bloodshed was so widespread that a host of other equipment companies also
hit new lows: Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU) recently traded down 11% to $7.88
while Corvis Corp. (CORV) was recently down 14.4% to $5.19.
A rash of earnings warnings by software companies like Redback Networks Inc.
(RBAK) and fiber optic equipment maker Harmonic Inc. (HLIT) after the bell
Monday, coupled with continued funding concerns for start-up phone companies,
served as a one-two punch for the sector.
Start-up phone company Winstar Communications Inc. (WCII) recently traded
down almost 54% to 41 cents, while peers Teligent Inc. (TGNT) dropped 31% to
28 cents and XO Communications Inc. fell 38% to $3.22. Investors have become
increasingly nervous that those companies will face bankruptcy, as the
capital markets have dried up.
Even well-funded carriers weren't exempt from Tuesday's selling pressure.
Shares of Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q) barely stayed above its
52-week low of $32.13, recently dropping 6.2% to $33.50, while shares of AT&T
Corp. (T) were off 5.1% to $20 and WorldCom Inc. (WCOM) fell 6.4% to $17.50.
-By Johnathan Burns, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2020;
[email protected]
Folder Name: Telecom Technology: Fiber Optics
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 65
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,001 |
Subject: Re: California "Fact Sheet"
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1107.
=====================================
Sarah --
Looks fine. Did Craig Roach contribute?
I wonder if we should highlight the Interconnection problems we are having
with new generation? I know that most of the delays are Siting related, but
it is unclear to me if the ISO or the local utility is the right point of
contact. This would help us nationally and gives FERC an "answer" - enforce
your Interconnection policies!!
Also, this doesn't mention any possible market flaws. Do we think that some
exist? Are any of the AS markets manipulated? EPSA needs to make sure that
it takes an honest approach to this situation or its credibility will be
destroyed. Has Craig Roach looked into this?
Jim
Sarah Novosel@ENRON
09/05/2000 02:39 PM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe@Enron,
Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, [email protected], Richard
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: California "Fact Sheet"
Here is EPSA's "Fact Sheet" on California. We're discussing it at the EPSA
power marketers' weekly conference call tomorrow. We're also considering
having EPSA submit this Fact Sheet to the CPUC in response to the data
requests sent by the CPUC (responses are due on Friday). If you have any
comments or suggested changes, please let me know (as soon as possible) in
case EPSA submits this paper to the CPUC.
Thanks
Sarah
---------------------- Forwarded by Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron on 09/05/2000
03:30 PM ---------------------------
"Jackie Gallagher" <[email protected]> on 08/30/2000 01:20:16 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: California "Fact Sheet"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regulatory Affairs Committee
Power Marketing Working Group
FROM: Donald Santa, Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair
Joe Hartsoe, Power Marketing Working Group Chair
Julie Simon, Vice President of Policy
DATE: August 30, 2000
RE: California "Fact Sheet"
At our meetings last week with FERC, we had a great deal of valuable factual
information and policy suggestions, but they were not pulled together as a
cohesive story. Based on materials provided by various companies, we have
drafted the attached fact sheet entitled "California: The Real Story." It is
an effort to pull together the most compelling pieces of information and
policy arguments as a "leave-behind" for FERC staff and other regulators and
to form the basis for any testimony at the upcoming congressional hearings.
The paper includes factual information pulled from a number of sources and
Jackie Gallagher, EPSA's Research Assistant, is attempting to verify and cite
as many facts as possible. To make the message convincing, we need "chapter
and verse" on our facts. Please review the material carefully to be sure it
is accurate and compelling. Any assistance in verifying these facts, or
providing others that do a better job of telling our story, will be
appreciated. You can e-mail to Jackie at [email protected].
We will discuss the paper during our conference call next Wednesday,
September 6 at 11:00 a.m. (EDT). To access the call, dial 1-800-937-6563 and
ask for the Julie Simon/EPSA call. If you have any questions or suggestions
before Wednesday, please contact Julie Simon at 202-789-7200.
Attachment
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]
- CALIFORNIA2.doc
=====================================
|
4,002 |
Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3794.
=====================================
I'll check around with some people today.
Richard Shapiro
11/22/2000 05:46 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, David
Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego
Union-Tribune
Don't know- Does anyone know?
From: James D Steffes on 11/22/2000 07:43 AM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego
Union-Tribune
Do you think that there is a deal in the works and we are "out in the rain"?
I have to doubt that DENA or Southern are willing to give $ back to
California. Maybe Reliant would.
Jim
Richard Shapiro
11/22/2000 07:37 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 11/22/2000
07:36 AM ---------------------------
"Lynne Church" <[email protected]> on 11/21/2000 05:21:23 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: "Gene Peters" <[email protected]>, "Julie Simon" <[email protected]>, "Mark
Stultz" <[email protected]>
Subject: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune
IEP's public affairs consultant arranged an editorial board meeting for me
while I was in town for the NARUC meeting. Present were Don Sevrens, news
editor/insight section; Bill Osborne, senior editor/opinion; Jim Gogek,
editorial writer; Bernie Jones, editor, opinion pages; Craig Rose, the
reporter who has written extensively on the topic, and a photographer.
My two primary messages were that (1) wholesale and retail competition is
working elsewhere, particularly in Pennsylvania, and can eventually work in
California if the rules are changed, and (2) California has a severe supply
shortage and needs to focus on providing incentives for new generation and
expediting the permitting process. I was subtly trying to get across the
message that leadership was needed to help Californians deal with the need to
reconcile their environmental and land use goals with the need to bring their
power supply and demand into balance. I, of course, defended FERC's order on
the causes of the price volatility in California this summer and their lack
of any authority to order retroactive refunds. I also pointed out that there
were no findings of individual market abuse, so that refunds wouldn't be
warranted even if there was legal authority. I also pointed out the problems
with price caps.
Other than Craig Rose, who disagreed with me any chance he got, the others
asked good questions and seemed to be listening. They made the point
repeatedly that this matter is very political, suggesting that a political
compromise with the generators/marketers is necessary. One of them said he
had heard there was a deal with the generators being negotiated and asked me
my position. I responded that I had no response. Anything like that is the
business of individual members.
They indicated that they expected to do a story for this coming Sunday's
Insight Section. Please give me any feedback you have.
cc: Stu Ryan, AES by fax
Jim Macias, Calpine, by fax
=====================================
|
4,003 |
Subject: Haas Helpdesk on the Web
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/246.
=====================================
Can you really get help at the click of a button? With our new improved
web based helpdesk system we are getting very close. Haas Computing
Services (HCS) is pleased to announce the on-line Service Request
System. Help is now just a click away at
http://helpdesk.haas.berkeley.edu/ Book mark it now or, if on site, just
type the word =0F"helpdesk=0F" in the "Location" or "Address" field of your=
web
browser and you'll be immediately transported to the Service Request System=
.
It couldn't be simpler=0F. no need for email delays, voice mail or busy
signals. Phoning and email are now completely optional. Any Haas faculty,
staff or student can now open and track his or her own service request
on-line.
As you launch the web site, you will need to sign in using your NT login
and password. Once logged in, you can enter a request, check the status of
requests, update your helpdesk user profile, view the entire job queue, or
check the queue for your department. The system is intuitive and is
described in detail on the homepage. A brief summary of the request entry
process is included below.
What=0F's different about this helpdesk system is that it puts the customer=
in
the driver's seat. You will be able to submit a request, or follow up on a
request whenever you need to. Your request will be captured in the
database in your own words so nothing is lost in translation. The web
based system permits you to enter a request from anywhere you have access
to a browser, even if your email is not working. It will permit you to see
the entire history of your service request with the assigned technician's
progress updates. You can also see requests made by other customers in
your department or in the Haas community.
What remains the same with this new system is the same high quality service
provided by the support staff. You will still have a single point of
contact for requesting technical services. Both Haas Media Services and
the Marketing and Communications Web Team have joined HCS in using this
system to track their service requests. Routine service requests will be
assigned to a support staff member within one business day of entry. The
person to whom the request is assigned will still be contacting the
customer within one business day to initiate problem resolution. Higher
priority requests will receive expedited service.
To take advantage of this new system, customers must be HCS account holders
(e.g. Haas students, faculty or staff) and have web browser capable of
running java scripts. We recommend using either Netscape or Internet
Explorer version 4.0 and above.
Haas Computing Services staff have developed and tested a system that we
believe suits your needs. We are pleased with the increased accessibility
and heightened direct customer-to-technician interaction this new on-line
system provides. We trust that you, our customers will also find the
system useful and we welcome your feedback on how we can further improve
our service.
Entering a Request:
Enter "helpdesk" in your browsers URL box or go to
http://helpdesk.haas.berkeley.edu . Login using your NT Haas domain login
and password. Click on "Enter Request". The system will default to your
name, or you can enter the last name of another person for whom you need to
enter a request. You'll need to enter a descriptive subject line and
provide some details regarding the kind of service you need. After you
have finished entering your request be sure to click the submit button at
the bottom of the page. Once you request is submitted it appears in the
helpdesk queue. From there our helpdesk operator will assign your request
to the appropriate person.
=====================================
|
4,004 |
Subject: PG&E Files Emergency Motion re URG Valuation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28301.
=====================================
???????????? PG&E has?filed the attached, =01&Motion to Establish Final Ma=
rket =20
Valuation of Non-Nuclear Generating Assets Pursuant to Public Utilities Cod=
e =20
Section 367.=018? The motion requests that the Commission consolidate in t=
he=20
docket used for the recent rate stabilization decision the existing record=
=20
of PG&E=01,s remaining major non-nuclear generating asset market valuation=
=20
proceedings and immediately adopt a final market valuation for all of PG&E=
=01,s=20
remaining non-nuclear generating assets.? The market valuation dockets tha=
t=20
would be consolidated in this proceeding include A.99-09-053 (hydroelectri=
c=20
assets); A.00-05-031 (Kern); and A.00-05-034 (Humboldt Bay). =20
??? ??? ??? The utility requests that this be done?prior to establishing=
=20
the revenue requirements and rates for PG&E=01,s retained generating asset=
s=20
pursuant to the June 15 Chief ALJ=01,s Ruling.? That ruling set a hearing=
=20
schedule for determining the revenue requirements of the three utilities=
=20
related to retained generation,?QFs, bilateral contracts, and ancillary=20
services.? PG&E asks that the?Commission rule on its Motion as soon as=20
possible and no later than July 19, so that PG&E and interested parties ha=
ve=20
the benefit of the ruling prior to the beginning of hearings on July 23,=
=20
2001.
PG&E argues that since the Commission has not completed market valuations=
=20
for PG&E=01,s generating assets,?it therefore may not legally determine th=
e=20
value of those assets for ratemaking purposes until such time as those=20
market valuations are complete.? In fact, there has been no action =20
whatsoever in?PG&E=01,s hydroelectric market valuation proceeding since Ja=
nuary=20
22,?when the Chief ALJ issued a ruling canceling a prehearing conference a=
nd=20
public participation hearings, and extending the comment period on the dra=
ft=20
environmental impact report.
The utility stresses that Section 367(b) of the PU Code?requires the=20
Commission to market value the utilities=01, generation assets =01¬ lat=
er than=20
December 31, 2001,=018 and that it has to be, =01&based on appraisal, sale=
or=20
other divestiture.=018? They also note that AB 6 from the Legislature=01,s=
First=20
Extraordinary Session modified Section 377 to?prohibit PG&E from selling a=
ny=20
of its existing generating assets until at least January 1, 2006, and=20
requires that those assets be dedicated for the benefit of California=20
ratepayers.? Since AB 6X precludes the Commission from valuing PG&E=01,s=
=20
generating assets by sale or divestiture, appraisal is the only lawful=20
method.
PG&E concludes that effective January 1, 2002, its non-nuclear retained=20
generation must be reflected in utility rates on the same basis as the=20
market value determined for purposes of AB 1890 stranded cost computations=
.?=20
Therefore, the?market valuations adopted by the Commission will have to be=
=20
included in the consideration of URG ratemaking in this proceeding.? The=
=20
motion says that the?valuations are also essential prerequisites to the=20
determination of any amounts that might be made available under the curren=
t=20
rate structure for payment to the DWR as provided for in AB1X.? PG&E =20
concludes that market valuation of its retained generating assets is an =20
essential prerequisite to establishing their revenue requirement, which is =
=20
hardly illogical.
Dan
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:?? (818) 596-2201
Fax:? (818) 346-6502
[email protected]
- 7-3-01 PG&E URG Motion.doc
=====================================
|
4,005 |
Subject: VANCOUVER, B.C. OFFSITE MEETING OCTOBER 16TH THROUGH OCTOBER 17TH
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2276.
=====================================
Tracy J. Cooper
Please note my name has changed from McLaughlin to Cooper
Enron Broadband Services
Government Affairs
(503) 886-0396
----- Forwarded by Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications on 10/11/00 05:01 AM
-----
Tracy Cooper
10/10/00 04:45 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: VANCOUVER, B.C. OFFSITE MEETING OCTOBER 16TH THROUGH OCTOBER 17TH
- MONDAY/TUESDAY -- AGENDA ATTACHED
Tracy J. Cooper
Please note my name has changed from McLaughlin to Cooper
Enron Broadband Services
Government Affairs
(503) 886-0396
----- Forwarded by Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications on 10/10/00 04:50 PM
-----
Tracy Cooper
10/10/00 02:38 PM
To: Geoffrey Allen/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Scott
Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Corbin Barnes/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Joe
Edwards/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Wayne Gardner/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Jan Haizman, Barbara A
Hueter/DUB/EES@EES, Susan M Landwehr/HOU/EES@EES, Corbin Barnes/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Ed Smida/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Michael Harris/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Lara Leibman/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Gia
Maisashvili/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron,
Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris Robinson/HOU/EES@EES, Mark
Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Xi Xi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Beverley Ashcroft/LON/ECT@ECT, Amy Fabian/Corp/Enron@ENRON, June
Fernandes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Angela Wilson/HOU/EES@EES, Marcia A
Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph Alamo/SFO/EES@EES, JoAnne Garner/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: VANCOUVER, B.C. OFFSITE MEETING OCTOBER 16TH THROUGH OCTOBER 17TH
- MONDAY/TUESDAY -- AGENDA ATTACHED
Hi everyone!
Attached is the final agenda for Vancouver -- also is the final rooming list
with confirmation numbers. The Hotel Waterfront is located at 900 Canada
Place Way, Vancouver, B.C. (604) 691-1991 (phone) and fax is (604) 691-1999.
The hotel is approximately half an hour (cab ride) from the airport. Cabs
are the recommended mode of transportation because the hotel shuttle bus does
not run very frequently and it often takes an hour to get to the hotel.
The meetings will take place in Ballroom A on both days (see ppt presentation
for meeting times) there will be signs in the lobby which indicate where the
Ballroom is located.
We will be serving breakfast and lunch Monday and only breakfast on Tuesday.
Attached are a few web sites if you are interested in any extracurricular
activities. The Canucks are Vancouver's hockey team and they are playing the
Toronto Maple Leafs Monday, October 16th. The writer's fest is taking place
on Granville Island (approx. half an hour walk or a 10 minute cab ride) from
the hotel -- see attached website for details.
Any questions, please call or email! I look forward to seeing you in
Vancouver!
http:\\www.writersfest.bc.ca
http:\\www.thehotelwaterfront.com
http:\\www.canucks.com
http:\\www.granvilleisland.com
Tracy J. Cooper
Please note my name has changed from McLaughlin to Cooper
Enron Broadband Services
Government Affairs
(503) 886-0396
=====================================
|
4,006 |
Subject: FERC Presentation on California/West Wholesale Market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/916.
=====================================
FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 08/30/2000 06:51
PM ---------------------------
"Mary Hain" <[email protected]> on 08/29/2000 08:11:22 PM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, "David W Delainey"
<[email protected]>, "John J Lavorato" <[email protected]>,
"Christopher F Calger" <[email protected]>, "Tim Belden"
<[email protected]>, "Joe Hartsoe" <[email protected]>, "Paul Kaufman"
<[email protected]>, "Sarah Novosel" <[email protected]>, "David
Parquet" <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, "Kevin M Presto" <[email protected]>, Richard
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, "Steve Kean" <[email protected]>, "Chris H Foster"
<[email protected]>, "Robert Badeer" <[email protected]>, "Jeff
Richter" <[email protected]>, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc: "Christi Nicolay" <[email protected]>
Subject: FERC Presentation on California/West Wholesale Market
Last Thursday, I made the first attached presentation to the FERC Staff at the
power marketer's meeting on the FERC's investigation of the wholesale market
in
the West (and in particular California). Ellen Wolf (of Tabors Caramanis)
and I
created this presentation building on previous presentations by Tim Belden and
Dave Parquet. In the presentation and the meeting we made the following
points:
There isn't much FERC can do because the cause of the price spikes is not
in
the wholesale market. We discouraged FERC from taking any action that
would
hurt the vibrant wholesale market in the California and the rest of the
West
as well.
High prices logically resulted from scarcity and if the Commission does
anything it should (1) investigate whether market power was being exercised
by any party and, (2) if necessary to protect the market (while still
incenting needed generation) establish a price cap at a scarcity rent level
equal to the price at which loads were willing to interrupt.
The IOUs have not properly prepared for the risk of high prices caused by
scarcity. They have failed to hedge and have underscheduled their load,
therefore having to fill a large percentage of their load at ISO real time
prices. My analogy was that this was like day trading your retirement fund
as an asset allocation scheme.
The market would function better if more information was provided to the
market.
The Commission should do whatever it can to incent participation by load.
To see the presentation, detach, save, and view in Powerpoint. When you do,
you
will find there are many "hidden" slides that were not part of the oral
presentation but were provided to Staff in hard copy for additional
information.
According to the head of the investigation (Scott Miller), the staff got alot
more out of this meeting than Staff's previous meetings with the IOUs and the
generators. Based on the numerous phone calls I've been getting, the Staff is
looking into the data we provided.
I have also attached a revised version of the presentation that Tim sent to
Scott Miller on Friday. Tim's version conveys the same message but takes a
different approach to conveying the message. On Friday, Tim talked to Scott
and
answered some additional questions. Tim said that Enron is in favor of
eliminating the mandatory PX buying requirement and would like the IOUs to be
able to buy from Enron Online. He also explained more fully the existence of
scarcity .
(See attached file: August 24 presentation to FERC1.ppt)(See attached file:
FERC Presentation.ppt)
- August 24 presentation to FERC1.ppt
- FERC Presentation.ppt
=====================================
|
4,007 |
Subject: Safeway Vons
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9345.
=====================================
Here's my version of the spreadsheet with some explanations...
Only use the first 6 tabs of the file. On the first tab, this is where you
do your sensitivity analysis. You can change the discount rate and terminal
value. These are the only inputs we need for this assignment.
The next two tabs are just historical data for Safeway and Vons. I used the
Vons tab to see if there were any significant trends in balance sheet or
income statement items as a percentage of sales.
Sales growth forecasts are given in the case and calculated in the
Additional Calculations tab. After that, almost everything is driven off
the Common Size tab. Given past trends, we are supposed to forecast each
balance sheet and income statement item as a percentage of sales. I almost
always used the most recent year as the forecast. In some cases, the
forecast turned out to be a calculation because the actual number (found on
the DCF tab) was derived some other way. (e.g., depreciation as a
percentage of PPE).
Note that I did not calculate debt as a percentage of sales. That's because
we are supposed to figure out both long and short term debt in aggregate, so
I didn't try to break it back out into long and short term as a percentage
of sales. It doesn't really matter if the whole Common Size tab is filled
out.
Any additional calculations I needed (e.g., sales forecasts) I did in a
separate sheet creatively called Additional Calculations.
Using the given assumptions of 12% discount rate and 7 times EBITDA
multiple, I get a per share value of lower than what Von's stock price is at
the time of the case. But even using 10% and 8 times EBITDA, I still can't
get to the $58 that Safeway is offering. However, if you use the 9.9
multiple that Safeway says their proposal represents and 11% discount rate,
you get a share price of about $58.
We are also supposed to look at the ratio analysis at the bottom of the DCF
tab and make sure the ratios are in line with expectations. You can compare
them to the ratios given at the bottom of the Vons tab.
I get asset turns that are a little higher than historically to begin with
and then they keep going up, which isn't usually normal. Asset turns tend
to remain relatively constant. The reason why asset turns start out higher
is because total PPE as a percentage of sales has been going down. This
makes sense given the information in the case that Vons is closing and
remodeling lots of stores. Thus, making assets more productive. The reason
why asset turns are increasing over time is because goodwill as an asset is
steadily decreasing as it gets written off and no further acquisitions are
made. Thus assets grow slower than sales. (I checked this. If you have
goodwill grow as a percentage of sales, asset turns stay constant).
The only other thing is that leverage seems to be much lower than
historically. I think it's because debt as a percentage of total assets has
gone down significantly. Given that Vons is generating more cash than
needed to support both operations and investments, extra cash is being paid
out as a dividend. (See line 76 on DCF tab). Thus, it is likely that debt
as a percentage of assets will continue to decrease as it gets paid off over
time. In the model, however, I have kept debt as a percentage of assets
constant at the 1996 level. (See line 28 in Additional Calculations). If
you increase debt and therefore increase leverage, you can get the ROE back
up to 1996 levels. However, without changing the discount rate, changing
the debt has no effect on the DCF share price.
If you have any questions, make sure you "reply to all" so I get it at both
home and school.
- Vons Model.xls
=====================================
|
4,008 |
Subject: Re: Label Calculation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/673.
=====================================
Unfortunately the CEC did NOT approve our label proposal (reasoning below).
EESI has a couple of options for the product label, including (1) 2
different product labels for the 5000 product where one label is for
commercial customers receiving 100% green (ensuring these customers where
5000 kwh in demand p/mo or less) and one for industrial customers (with a
percentage green + system mix); and (2) aggregating all customers together
and weighting the green percentages accordingly. George & Richard are you
available this afternoon to discuss?
---------------------- Forwarded by Stacey Bolton/HOU/EES on 08/18/2000 12:47
PM ---------------------------
"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
=====================================
|
4,009 |
Subject: Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3509.
=====================================
Dear Jeff
Thanks for the message. Yes, a great pity we missed each other. If I had
known of your timetable constraints we could have discussed possibilities at
the reception. I sympathised with what you had to say at the symposium and
would like to learn more.
I have just arrived in Washington DC, where I shall be until Saturday, then
returning to UK. I have a meeting tomorrow (Thursday) morning but otherwise
would be free to meet, if you were planning to be over here. Another
possibility might be to talk on the phone. Tel 202 363 3350 c/o Lois
Godiksen, though I call in at LECG tomorrow afternoon. Or of course I
should be pleased to see you in UK. I shall be there next week, then in
Japan for a week, then likely to be in UK for rest of December. I am
normally in Birmingham rather than London, but it would not be too difficult
to get to London for a meeting. I had wondered about the possiblity of
coming to the American Economic Association meetings in New Orleans in early
January, after which I would come up to DC again. That might be another
opportunity to get together.
I did talk to David Teece briefly, and he mentioned a possible joint venture
with several companies, without naming them - is this what you are referring
to? He said very little about it so I would welcome a discussion.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes
Stephen
>From: [email protected]
>To: "Stephen Littlechild" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re:
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:58:11 -0600
>
>
>Dr. Littlechild.
>
>I'm very disappointed that our schedules seemed to pass in the night. I
>had an engagement on Monday night, which regrettably kept me from having
>dinner with the speakers. And Tuesday I was traveling. I tried to call
>the Claremont and had a dreadful time trying to leave you a message. If
>you haven't left the states yet, I would very much like to get together.
>Otherwise, I'll just have to come to London. I understand that David Teece
>has filled you in on our discussions. Would like to discuss that futher
>with you. It was a great pleasure to meet you, however briefly, and I hope
>that our paths cross again very soon.
>
>All the best,
>Jeff
>
>
>
> "Stephen
> Littlechild" To:
>[email protected]
> <sclittlechild@ho cc:
> tmail.com> Subject:
>
> 11/14/2000 11:46
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeff
>
>Sorry we missed last night. I was expecting to see you at the dinner. I
>should like to visit the office if there is time. My constraints today are
>lecture at Berkeley 12.30 to 2pm, and they suggest I should be there around
>
>11.30 beforehand. Also a request to meet someone from STG consulting, with
>whom I am doing some work, probably in Menlo Park, and an invitation to
>dinner in Berkeley area. I had thought we might meet this morning before
>the
>lecture, but probably too late now. Could do afterwards, en route to Menlo
>Park? I am at Claremont Hotel until around 11.15, tel 510 843 3000 room
>325.
>Am in Business Centre on Hotmail at present but computer's a bit slow here.
>Regards
>Stephen
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
=====================================
|
4,010 |
Subject: Possible Messages on Legislation in California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/129.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 09/01/2000 05:51
PM ---------------------------
Jeff Dasovich
09/01/2000 05:31 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Possible Messages on Legislation in California
Here's an attempt at being frank about the legislation without jeopardizing
our relationships or commercial prospects.
Overall, we respect the effort, but California failed to get the ball over
the goal line:
On Siting
Intentionally or not, California has designed power plant siting laws that
make it excruciatingly difficult to construct power plants in the state.
Folks seem to have lost sight of the need to balance growth and environmental
quality in California.
That's why nothing's been built in the state for a decade and developers are
going outside the state to build power plants.
Tinkering around the edges won't help; and (with all due respect) the
legislation passed yesterday tinkers.
Real reform is required if California hopes to build the supply necessary to
keep pace with Silicon Valley and a high tech culture and tame the price
spikes.
If developers continue to have to navigate through a maze of a half a
dozen--or more--state and local agencies, California's supply problems will
continue, or worsen.
California needs real, one-stop shopping and it needs it now.
On the retail price cap
They don't work (we've already developed all the arguments, so I won't repeat
them hear)
The press has already reported that the measure the Legislature passed simply
puts off the day of reckoning.
It's like using your credit card--eventually they're going to knock on your
door to collect.
Now, families and businesses will have a hard time managing their budgets
because they can't gauge the size of the balloon payment they'll face a
couple of years down the road.
So San Diegans who continue to take service from SDG&E will pay the same
amount, but the cap will remove the powerful incentive prices create to use
electricity wisely--bad solution.
There's a better answer:
Instead of urging consumers not to switch, encourage customers to sign with
another retail provider.
Clearly, the biggest mistake California made was neglecting to establish a
retail market in its restructuring legislation.
Urging customers to stay with the utility made matters worse, given the
volatility of the Power Exchange. (Variable rate mortgage story.)
But some customers who did switch and who took a fixed-price deal with
companies like ours are doing very well.
But for the press reports, the customers who switched to those deals hardly
know there's a crisis.
So California needs to follow's Pennsylvania's lead and make a market that
works for retail customers.
If the price spikes in the PX worry you, the best way to protect yourself is
to leave the utility and switch to another provider who's willing to take on
that risk on your behalf.
Remove the monopoly that California originally granted to the PX.
Just like the customers who switched, the utilities could have bought
fixed-price power and protected themselves from the PX's price volatility.
But for some crazy reason, California forced the utilities to buy everything
from PX.
And the utilities have complained about it---even former monopolies don't
like buying from a monopoly.
Let the utility buy from any competitive source available.
Don't meld the PX with the ISO---that would simply re-enforce the PX monopoly
and make a bad situation much worse.
Make California's ISO a for-profit "Transco," like we have in our interstate
gas pipeline system
[[I leave this last recommendation as food for thought. May be too much to
bite off.]]
Have a good holiday.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,011 |
Subject: Re: New OII
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1576.
=====================================
Thanks!
Is there a way to get electronic versions of the documents online?
I found the CPUC website....
From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/09/2000 12:05 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: New OII
Hi. Sorry for the delay. Today's big FERC hearing has had me wrapped up.
Please read the following and keep VERY confidential---it's an internal PG&E
summary. Electronic version of OII to follow.
Best,
Jeff
******************************************************************************
****************
Yesterday, the Commission issued an OII to determine the
> adequacy of Sempra Energy's, SoCalGas' and SDG&E's gas transmission
> practices and to determine what measures need to be taken to correct any
> deficiencies. The OII orders the Sempra affiliates and parent to
> demonstrate that SDG&E's gas supply and transmission system are adequate
> to provide service to present and future core and noncore customers.
>
> As you may recall, the OII sprang from an AL that SDG&E
> filed in August requesting emergency review and approval of its proposals
> to temporarily revise gas transportation service elections to its noncore
> customers. SDG&E subsequently pulled the advice letter after the
> Commission issued a resolution rejecting it and outlined an OII it was
> going to issue on this matter. The language in the OII that was issued
> yesterday is substantially similar to that which was in the Commission's
> original draft resolution.
>
> The Sempra companies have been ordered to appear at a soon
> to be determined PHC to show cause and demonstrate that:
>
> 1. SDG&E has adequate gas transmission supply for the
> 2000/2001 winter heating season, as well as the longer term supply
> throughout the year. If supply is inadequate, SDG&E shall submit plans
> for obtaining adequate supply.
> 2. SDG&E gas and transmission supply is adequate to meet
> anticipated need for gas fired generation. If not, SDG&E shall submit
> plans for obtaining adequate supply.
> 3. SDG&E's gas transmission service is not being adversely
> affected by interests of its corporate affiliate.
> 4. Recently added demands on SDG&E's capacity are not
> negatively impacting supply for SDG&E's customers. and otherwise
> consistent with representations made to the Commission.
> 5. SDG&E's current gas curtailment rules are just and
> reasonable; if not, SDG&E shall propose changes.
>
> We are going to need to keep a careful eye on this
> proceeding as it develops to make sure it stays focused on events in
> southern California. Commission Bilas gave me assurances last week before
> the OII was issued that it was a Sempra problem, not a statewide problem.
> However, given everyone's sensitivities to EG concerns, its a proceeding
> that could easily be expanded beyond its current narrow focus. I'll
> forward you all a copy of the order later today.
>
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/09/2000 12:02 PM -----
Susan Scott
11/09/2000 09:41 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich
cc:
Subject: New OII
The proceeding is I0011002; I think the order was issued Nov. 2.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 11/09/2000
09:40 AM ---------------------------
Susan Scott
11/06/2000 02:28 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich
cc:
Subject: New OII
Jeff, I read in Gas Daily that the Cal PUC has issued an OII on the adequacy
of supply and pipeline infrastructure in southern California. Could you have
someone send me a copy of the order whenever it is issued? Steve thinks it's
something we might want to get involved in, but I need to know more.
Great to see you last week.
Ciao,
Susan
=====================================
|
4,012 |
Subject: Re: Important Legislation Watch: H.R. 5415
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2408.
=====================================
Cynthia - I think you have told us what we need to know. I assume
"monitoring" will be no burden since you expect no movement. Our arrangement
with Enron does not require you to undertake any efforts on our behalf that
you would not otherwise take on Enron's, so I won't ask you to start a new
file on this.
Will the bill die at the end of the year if there has been no action or will
it stay alive into the next Congress?
Thanks for your kind thoughts on our IPO and thanks for steering me to Sen
Schumer's office last week. We will keep up that relationship now that it
is established.
From: Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON on 10/12/2000 04:12 PM CDT
To: Kathleen E Magruder/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@Enron, Marc Manly/HOU/EES@EES, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Tom
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Important Legislation Watch: H.R. 5415
Kathleen: We will be happy to monitor this bill for you. However, you
should know that this legislation is going nowhere this Congress. The member
introducing it, Congressman Filner (D-CA), is not a member of the Ways and
Means Committee to which the bill was referred. Further, as a Democrat, even
if he were a Ways and Means Committee Member, the bill would go nowhere
absent support from a Republican Committee Member (which he does not have.)
Finally, there is only a small outside chance that this Congress will even
consider a tax package at all this year. The possible tax package which has
been circulated does not contain this language. Interestingly, this
Congressman has also recently introduced separate legislation (H.R. 5131) to
give FERC retroactive rate-making authority in order to roll back wholesale
prices and refund the overcharges to consumers. Seems he's on a roll!!!! As
a member from the San Diego area, he is mostly introducing these type of
bills for press purposes. Hope you are doing well and Congratulations on the
success of the IPO!
Kathleen E Magruder@EES
10/12/2000 10:09 AM
To: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Marc Manly/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Important Legislation Watch
Please let me know what action, if any, is Enron taking on this piece of
legislation. If you are monitoring, would you please add me to your
distribution list?
Thanks
---------------------- Forwarded by Kathleen E Magruder/HOU/EES on 10/12/2000
10:07 AM ---------------------------
Enron Energy Services
From: Vickie Gross 10/11/2000 06:01 PM
Phone: n/a
To: Steve Nolan/HOU/EES@EES, Jim Malone/TNPC/EES@EES, Bill Jacobs, Gene
Lockhart/HOU/EES@EES, Kathleen E Magruder/HOU/EES@EES, John
Henderson/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Manly
cc:
Subject: Important Legislation Watch
Per the attached:
HR Bill 5415 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and designed
to impose a windfall profits tax on wholesale electric energy sold in the
Western System Coordinating Council (WSCC). The Act referred to as the
"Public Oversight of Wholesale Electric Rates Act" or "POWER Act" attempts to
impose an excise tax of 100% of the windfall profits received by a seller of
power in the WSCC. The windfall profit tax would be calculated on the excess
of the energy rate sold over the regulated price. This tax would be
effective for sales of electricity sold after June 1, 2000. While this tax
would be imposed on the wholesale seller, the amount passed to the retail
consumer would be inclusive of the new tax.
=====================================
|
4,013 |
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/510.
=====================================
Attached is the file that contains the details behind the table below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray; Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark; Page, Jonalan; Buerkle, Jim; Hyde, Crystal
Cc: Elafandi, Mo
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL
All:
The DWR contract analysis has now been updated to include the gas-indexed deals. The total out-of-market for executed contracts stands at $12 billion. As you can see 7 counterparties hold contracts in excess of values indicated by recent curves by $500 million or more.
Thanks goes to Mo Elafandi for pushing this analysis through the structuring group.
GAC
Mark-to-Market of
DWR Contracts By Counter Party
($s, negative number means contract is above market)
Calpine -$4,479,764,629
Coral -$1,493,874,018
Williams -$1,056,234,556
Dynegy -$987,044,991
Allegheny -$958,949,529
High Desert -$674,251,353
Sunrise -$551,894,408
Dynegy -$471,117,317
GWF -$432,339,191
Mirant -$265,644,251
Constellation -$165,463,637
El Paso -$128,334,382
Morgan Stanley -$82,462,946
Alliance -$75,169,854
PG&E Gen -$63,165,408
Clearwood -$41,423,566
IID -$13,035,452
Duke Energy -$2,052,733
Total Overmarket PV -$11,942,222,221
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Comnes, Alan; Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Sharma, Ban; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray; Palmer, B. Scott; Palmer, Mark; Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray; Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark; Page, Jonalan
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update
I am resending the same file as before (although to a larger group) and need to make a correction regarding one assumption. I am told the analysis does not yet include the gas indexed contracts. We're working on getting them included and when they are, the overmarket value will likely increase.
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:04 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Sharma, Ban; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray
Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update
Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts. Attached is their analysis.
In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the agreements-in principle. (Only executed contracts were released by the state in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their nongas costs only. Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time. These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves. Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.
The stranded cost under these assumptions is approximately $10 billion. The spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract. Note: a negative "mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.
As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves. Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.
Alan Comnes
<< File: Stranded Cost Analysis Structuring Confidential.xls >>
<< File: Stranded Cost Analysis Structuring Confidential.xls >>
=====================================
|
4,014 |
Subject: Moveon.org Campaign Against Energy Producers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4002.
=====================================
Moveon.org, a group that positions itself as an internet based consumer
watchdog, has mounted a campaign in support of the Federal Energy Reliability
and Stability Act of 2001. The campaign takes direct aim at enron, dynegy
and other companies. Have a look at their website, at
http://www.moveon.org/priceshocked/index.html. In the meantime, here's a
copy of a mass, unsolicited email that someone at our PR Firm in NY (ss+k)
received from moveon.org (see below).
----
Date: 4/24/01 5:01 PM
From: Wes Boyd, MoveOn.Org
Dear Friend of MoveOn,
Energy prices are skyrocketing across the nation, yet Washington is
doing nothing. Energy producers are taking huge windfall profits.
Consumers and taxpayers are given the shaft.
Enough is enough. Join our citizens' campaign by sending an instant
email to your representatives in Washington. Go to:
http://www.moveon.org/priceshocked/index.html
The energy markets are controlled by a small number of companies --
Enron, Duke, Dynegy, Reliant, etc -- which supply local utilities
throughout the country with gas and power. These companies are so
big, they are more like monopolies than players in a price-competitive
market. Their irresponsible behavior calls for a strong federal hand.
In California alone, these companies and their affiliates have already
overcharged by more than $6.3 billion (1). If nothing is done, the
number is expected to rise to as much as $70 billion (2). That's $2,000
for every man, woman, and child in the state.
This may be the biggest scam ever to hit the U.S. -- potentially
dwarfing the Savings and Loan mess of the 80s. Yet FERC, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Bush administration are taking
no action.
A new bill sponsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA), Smith (R-OR), and
Lieberman (D-CT), would direct FERC to set temporary "cost-plus" rates
allowing wholesalers to charge a reasonable rate of profit, not the
excessive premiums they are now charging.
Join us in voicing your support for this important bill at:
http://www.moveon.org/priceshocked/index.html
Thank you for your help. And pass on the word. We cannot let this
go unchallenged.
Sincerely,
-Wes Boyd
MoveOn.org
___________
P.S. Beware myths spread by the energy lobby.
Here are two corrections:
- Rising demand in California HAS NOT created the problem. California's
monthly peak electricity demand actually declined in July, August,
October, and December of 2000 relative to the same months in 1999 (4).
- More drilling and relaxed environmental standards ARE NOT the answer.
Opening new domestic supplies takes decades and only adds months of
additional supply (5). Increased efficiency, immediate investment in
renewables, and market stabilization are the only short term answers.
Sources:
(1) California Independent Systems Operator, http://www.caiso.com/
(2) A range of $50-70 billion is cited in "No Time for Lectures,"
LA times, April 18th, 2001,
http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010418/t000032667.html
(3) Severin Borenstein, Director of Univ. Cal. Energy Institute
(4) California Independent System Operator cited in
"Special Report: The California Energy Crisis" (Page 1)
at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
(5) U.S. Geological Survey, as cited by Sierra Club
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/arctic.asp
__________
This is a message from MoveOn.org
If you wish to remove yourself from this list, please visit
our subscription management page at
http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=140-102126-Oien2IT7gEvnW0QfXYP3ww
--
Jonathan Kopp
[email protected]
SS+K
Shepardson Stern and Kaminsky
568 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
O: 212.419.3355
F: 212.419.3369
=====================================
|
4,015 |
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28976.
=====================================
Attached is the file that contains the details behind the table below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.;
Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray; Palmer, Mark A. (PR);
Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray; Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark;
Page, Jonalan; Buerkle, Jim; Hyde, Crystal
Cc: Elafandi, Mo
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update--CONFIDENTIAL
All:
The DWR contract analysis has now been updated to include the gas-indexed
deals. The total out-of-market for executed contracts stands at $12
billion. As you can see 7 counterparties hold contracts in excess of values
indicated by recent curves by $500 million or more.
Thanks goes to Mo Elafandi for pushing this analysis through the structuring
group.
GAC
Mark-to-Market of
DWR Contracts By Counter Party
($s, negative number means contract is above market)
Calpine -$4,479,764,629
Coral -$1,493,874,018
Williams -$1,056,234,556
Dynegy -$987,044,991
Allegheny -$958,949,529
High Desert -$674,251,353
Sunrise -$551,894,408
Dynegy -$471,117,317
GWF -$432,339,191
Mirant -$265,644,251
Constellation -$165,463,637
El Paso -$128,334,382
Morgan Stanley -$82,462,946
Alliance -$75,169,854
PG&E Gen -$63,165,408
Clearwood -$41,423,566
IID -$13,035,452
Duke Energy -$2,052,733
Total Overmarket PV -$11,942,222,221
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Comnes, Alan; Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes,
James; Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave; Sharma, Ban; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray;
Palmer, B. Scott; Palmer, Mark; Calger, Christopher F.; Calvert, Gray;
Etringer, Michael; Fillinger, Mark; Page, Jonalan
Subject: RE: DWR Stranded Cost Update
I am resending the same file as before (although to a larger group) and need
to make a correction regarding one assumption. I am told the analysis does
not yet include the gas indexed contracts. We're working on getting them
included and when they are, the overmarket value will likely increase.
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:04 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Thome, Jennifer; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara,
Susan; Perrino, Dave; Sharma, Ban; Belden, Tim; Alvarez, Ray
Subject: DWR Stranded Cost Update
Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West
Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the
above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts. Attached is their
analysis.
In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the
agreements-in principle. (Only executed contracts were released by the state
in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their
nongas costs only. Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we
excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas
portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time.
These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves.
Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.
The stranded cost under these assumptions is approximately $10 billion. The
spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract. Note: a negative
"mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.
As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves.
Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.
Alan Comnes
<< File: Stranded Cost Analysis Structuring Confidential.xls >>
<< File: Stranded Cost Analysis Structuring Confidential.xls >>
=====================================
|
4,016 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly--Issue #43
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/185.
=====================================
<<IPW091701.pdf>>
Good Morning,
Our deepest sorrow and sympathy goes out to all those who have lost loved
ones and have suffered because of last Tuesday's national tragedy.
For those investors that are interested in understanding how last week's
tragedy might impact the sector we attached the latest issue of our
Independent Power Weekly and offer the following thoughts:
1. Framework for Analysis From a broader equity market perspective, the
analytical challenge for investors is understanding how the prospect of
slower economic growth will impact the outlook for corporate earnings.
Another area for analysis is understanding how the negative impact of a
slowing economy will be offset by falling interest rates.
2. Sector is Well Positioned Relative to the Market On both fronts, we
believe the power generation sector is well positioned relative to the
broader market. Compared to the rest of the market, the growth prospects
for the industry are clearly less sensitive to economic conditions.
Providing support for this view, in 1991, when real GDP declined 0.5%,
electricity demand increased 2.0%, which compares with a 2.2% annual growth
rate from 1990-2000. In addition, we believe the sector will benefit
disproportionately from falling interest rates.
3. Current Valuations Offer Downside Protection Current valuations for the
sector offer downside protection relative to the market. On average, the
pure play US IPPs are trading at 14.4 and 11.0 times our 2001 and 2002 EPS
estimates. This valuation represents a 33% and 42% discount to the S&P 500,
despite an average growth rate of 28% for the IPPs versus 6% for the S&P
500.
4. Impact on the NY Power Market How these tragedies will impact the
fundamentals of the New York power market has been the subject of
considerable speculation. Our analysis indicates that even under the most
extreme demand reduction scenario, supply shortages will persist in the
region through mid-2006. However, the magnitude of the potential shortfall
(measured in MW) is likely to decline by 12 - 30%.
5. Impact on Recent Power Market Activity The World Trade Center tragedy
had a number of consequences for the power markets. Most immediately, the
impact was felt in New York where significantly reduced demand from lower
Manhattan pushed down local power prices. Throughout the country, the
situation resulted in well below normal trading volumes. Finally, the
overall uncertainty served to push up forward prices in several parts of the
country.
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.
=====================================
|
4,017 |
Subject: FW: Enron says would not pay California refund
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11675.
=====================================
fyi...
-----Original Message-----
From: Schmidt, Ann M.
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:22 AM
To: Denne, Karen
Subject: Enron says would not pay California refund
Enron says would not pay California refund
July 25, 2001 12:01 PM ET
By Timothy Gardner
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - Energy firm Enron Corp. (ENE
<quotelogic.jhtml?ticker=ENE>) would not pay its "minuscule" portion of the
nearly $9 billion California claims energy companies owe the state for
overcharges during the Western power crunch, Enron President and Chief
Executive Officer Jeff Skilling said on Wednesday.
California alleges that electricity generators and marketers owe the state
$8.9 billion for overcharging it during the power crisis from mid-2000 to
last spring. Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, said he is prepared to go to
court to retrieve the money.
But Enron, the No. 1 U.S. natural gas and electricity marketer, does not
intend to pay its portion of the alleged overcharges. which Skilling said was
"minuscule."
"The $9 billion number is bogus to begin with," Skilling told analysts at a
meeting about Enron's second-quarter earnings in New York. Skilling said
Enron's share of the alleged overcharge is $38.5 million. He said Enron
should in fact recover $32 million in net purchases from California.
At least one sector of California's electricity regulation system agrees that
Enron's involvement was small in the power crisis, in which electricity
prices reached records and rolling brownouts darkened many areas.
Sales records kept by the California Independent System Operator, which
manages most of the state's power grid, show Enron accounted for 0.4 percent
of the alleged $9 billion overcharge.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is meeting on Wednesday in its
biweekly commissioners meeting, in part to consider the refunds after a
federal mediator rejected California's claims. On July 12. FERC Chief
Administration Judge Curtis Wagner swung the issue back to the commission for
further action. Wednesday's meeting is the last scheduled before the
commission takes a month-long break.
STILL ROUNDS TO BE FOUGHT IN CALIFORNIA
Enron's problems in California are far from being settled. A committee of the
California Senate investigating suspected price gouging during the power
crunch recently found Enron in contempt for refusing to disclose confidential
sales and bidding records.
The California Senate last used the contempt ruling in 1929 against a cement
company, but eventually the state's Supreme Court threw out the ruling,
saying the charges were too vague.
Just before the California Senate voted to hold Enron in contempt, the
Houston-based company sued in a California court on a claim that FERC, not
the California Senate, had jurisdiction.
"They (California) are making political noise we don't like," said Skilling.
He said if the situation got worse the company could reduce its market share
there. "We'll walk away from the situation and reserve out," he said.
Although Enron claims little involvement in the alleged overcharge, the
company says it has learned from the crisis.
Skilling said that looking forward, Enron will avoid dealing with
intermediaries that the company contends helped lead to the power crunch.
"We're focused on retail in California; we're going direct to customers
without dealing with an intermediary," said Skilling.
Shares in Enron, which reported earnings slightly better than expected on
July 12, were down 34 cents to $42.90 in early trade on the New York Stock
Exchange. That is down from its peak this year of more than $81, hit in
mid-February in the depths of the Western power crunch.
--
REUTERS
=====================================
|
4,018 |
Subject: RE: Updated Core/Non-Core Analysis
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3202.
=====================================
I would like to step back to the plug number for T&D and suggest another
method. The plug, as I understand it, is calculated by building up
generation cost from the MOU presentation and substracting that number from
the total utility revenues reflected in the Lynch decision. Unless the
generation component reflected in the MOU and Lynch's decision are the same
(and I don't think they are), this won't result in a proper number.
For PGE, I am very confident that their non-generation costs are equal to
$.0391 per kWh based upon PGE data filed in the rate design hearing. That
rate multiplied by 81,991 results T&D cost of $3,206. I think this is the
number that should be used for PGE. I don't think you should tie to the
$11,400 number. The T&D number would need to be adjusted for the
core/non-core adjustment factor (core = 125% of average).
For SCE, assuming that the system average generation rate is $.073 and that
the existing total system average rate is $.1132, that leaves a
non-generation system average rate of $.042 which equates to total T&D cost
of $3,519. Because the PGE and SCE systems have a similar per unit rate for
T&D (4.02 v 3.91) and the mix between core and non-core are similar I think
using the 125% factor is reasonable for SCE.
Going through similar calculations and assumptions I come up with a T&D per
unit cost of $.0623 for SDGE. Because their mix of core and non-core is
heavily tilted toward core the above factor would not be applicable.
Perhaps, not adjusting it at all would not be too far off.
Call me if you have questions.
Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate
05/18/2001 08:27 AM
To: Kortney Brown/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeffrey A Soo/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: RE: Updated Core/Non-Core Analysis
I re-set the Core to Non Core T&D (in cents) ratio (see the bottom of the
spreedsheet for relative cost and attached the spreadsheet) to 200%. As you
can see the analysis is very sensative to this apportionment. Robert and
Harry, any additional ideas about apportioning this would improve the model's
accuracy.
PGE SCE SDGE
Core Rate T&D 5.721 7.240 7.616
Non Core T&D 2.867 3.620 3.809
Total $ 3,836 $ 5,147 $ 1,285
Core T&D/Non Core T&D 200% 200% 200%
By taking PGE's FYE 2000 10-K, I find the following:
Consumer Rev $3008
All Other $3658
Total $6666
Estimated T&D $3836
Gen portion $2830
Consumer Kwh 28,753
Other 53,170
Total 81,923
If 45.1% of revenue is from consumer, and the T&D is estimated at $3836, you
can apportion T&D if you assume gen is apportioned pro-rata:
Consumer Other Total
Gen 993 1837 2830
T&D 2015 1821 3836
Total 3008 3658 6666
T&D (cents)/kwh 7.01 3.42 4.68
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Kortney
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:31 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Neustaedter, Robert; Kingerski, Harry
Cc: Tribolet, Michael; Soo, Jeffrey A.
Subject: Updated Core/Non-Core Analysis
Attached is the revised Core/Non-Core Analysis per our discussion. We have
updated to include the new CPUC rate schedules for PGE and SCE and a toggle
switch 20- year bond scenario to cover the past utility debt that is the
burden of Non-Core. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Kortney
<< File: CoreNonCoreAnalysiswoDWRNewRates.xls >>
=====================================
|
4,019 |
Subject: Re: Notes on Hong Kong/Singapore Tax/Legal/Regulatory
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2334.
=====================================
Here as requested in today's phone call are my notes on Hong Kong/ Singapore
for use in
writing your questionnaire:
The Regulatory Structure in Wayne's e-mail is proposed because of a number of
regulatory characteristics of Japan which may or may not each apply in HK and
in Singapore.
We should go through each of the regulatory characteristics of Japan and
determine if it applies in HK and then in Singapore. For example;
- The requirement for half-circuits
- Whether there is a requirement that resellers of local capacity in HK/Sin
must hold a
license directly and cannot use a US affiliate to do the trading
- Whether resellers in HK and SIngapore sell, or need to sell, only to
companies
licensed in HK and Singapore
- The different and lower tax rates in HK and SIngapore - - 16% in HK and
from 10% to zero in Singapore compared with the 62% in Japan. These
are even
lower than the US 35% rate. All other things being equal which they
never are,
for HK and Singapore maybe we don't want models that tilt it toward the
US.
Maybe we want models that tilt HK and Singapore trades to occur in HK
and SIngapore with their lower rates. Maybe we even want to shovel
other
country trades in Asia there.
- Also to find out whether the trades are even taxable in HK and Singapore
in the
first place.
From conversations with Clifford Chance/HK, already I am pretty certain the
HK and
probably SIngapore as well differ from the Japan situation in several ways,
such as:
In Hong Kong:
- no half circuit requirement . We can buy/sell capacity from HK all
the way to
US. HK only cares about what's happening in HK - not the mid
points
in the Pacific. May be same for Singapore. (?)
- our entity buys capacity from properly licensed HK fixed network
facilities based carriers and sells (if sold in HK) to licensed
entities.
- we are a service operator . we don't get the circuit itself, we get
the capacity.
We buy capacity from a properly licensed HK fixed network carrier
- may be way for US entity to be used for most of the transaction.
If our US entity buys and sells capacity from the entity here
without
needing any facilities here, it may be able to do it w/o its own
license
in HK:
If US entity sells to non-HK customers, no license is needed for
the sales
If US entity sells to licensed HK customers, it may have
to get a class license
- But again, which is better for us, a US entity or a Hong Kong/
SIngapore one,
tax-wise and regulatory-wise.
In Singapore , we need to see if it is like HK but I think it probably will
be close. We need to come up with a model suitable for the HK situation
with input of
locally based telecom lawyers and do the same for Singapore.
Additional notes from the call:
Robbi will take lead to identify Singapore telecom law firms, and whether
Clifford Chance is the right firm to continue with in HK.
Need to put in questionnaire Robbi's question about whether buying as well as
selling
was covered. Robbi has specific formulation of question.
I will proceed with the Arthur D Little consultant contract for analytical
support for
our Pioneer Status application in Singapore, working with Anthony Duenner.
I will proceed to progress the Singapore license application using the
existing SIngapore
entity. Will get input from commercial.
Robbi will look at the question of additional directors for the company.
Separate e-mail on that to her.
David
=====================================
|
4,020 |
Subject: Fwd: AP - Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10052.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/16/2001 11:13 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
03/16/2001 09:51 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: AP - Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Fri, 16 Mar
2001 09:01:51 -0600 -----
To: "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Alfredo Perez" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Watkiss"
<[email protected]>, "Mark Evans" <[email protected]>, "Ronald
Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: AP - Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien
Thursday March 15, 9:14 pm Eastern Time
Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien
By LESLIE GORNSTEIN
AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Breaking away from a pack of creditors owed billions by
Southern California Edison, Caithness Energy got permission Wednesday to
secure a lien against one of the utility's plants.
The judgment lets the New York-based electricity supplier to attach a partial
claim on an Edison facility in Laughlin, Nev. -- a move that could spur
bigger creditors to launch similarly aggressive approaches or even force
Edison into bankruptcy.
Caithness, which has two Nevada plants owed $20 million by Edison, was
allowed to attach the lien by U.S. District Judge Lloyd George of Las Vegas.
Once it becomes final in the next few days, the claim will be the first lien
successfully placed against an Edison asset since California's energy crisis
began last year.
An Edison spokesman said the utility will seek a stay of the order next week.
A lien allows a creditor a better chance of getting paid by laying claim to
all or a portion of any future sale of a property. The judge allowed
Caithness to file for a 56 percent interest in the plant, which employs 309
people and is valued at $530 million.
The energy was used by Edison to feed California's energy grid, Caithness
attorney Philip Korologos said Thursday.
Edison owes Caithness a total of $100 million, and another $20 million bill
will come due at the end of March, Korologos said.
``They took delivery of the power and they are supposed to pay us for the
power,'' Korologos said.
But whether Caithness will go after Edison's California assets is far from
certain. Korologos said he believed that some form of additional mediation is
required for California liens that might make such an option less attractive
in the utility's home state.
Edison's bigger creditors, including Reliant Energy of Houston, declined to
speculate on whether they will employ a similar tactic.
But industry experts said that the Caithness move could cause other, bigger
creditors to feel pressure to act more aggressively on behalf of
shareholders. The law requires only three major creditors to band together to
force Edison into involuntary bankruptcy; the utility has said it does not
intend to file on its own.
So far, most creditors have chosen to simply wait, or ``forbear,'' on the
Edison debts, having fielded repeated pleas by Edison to do so. At least four
creditors or groups of creditors have sued the utility for money owed but
have taken no further action.
A New York-based creditor last month unsuccessfully tried to attach a lien to
an Edison bank account without success, an Edison spokesman said.
Edison's problems began last year when, under California's 1996 deregulation
law, investor-owned utilities were forced to buy power on the soaring spot
market while limiting the rates they could charge consumers.
Edison and fellow utility Pacific Gas & Electric say they owe creditors a
combined $14 billion.
=====================================
|
4,021 |
Subject: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.: FCC May Phase Out Phone Fees
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4195.
=====================================
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/04/2000 08:47 AM -----
[email protected]
12/04/2000 08:34 AM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.: FCC May Phase Out Phone Fees
Paid by Local Telephone ...
FCC May Phase Out Phone Fees Paid by Local Telephone Companies
12/04/2000
Dow Jones Business News
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones&Company, Inc.)
WASHINGTON -- In a boost for the Baby Bells, the head of the Federal
Communications Commission said he hopes his agency soon will approve a plan
to gradually eliminate the billions of dollars of fees local telephone
companies pay each other to complete calls, The Wall Street Journal reported
on Monday.
FCC Chairman William Kennard is circulating among the other four
commissioners a plan to phase out the fees over three years. He said details
are being negotiated, but the plan would set a formula to determine if call
traffic -- and therefore the fees -- is going disproportionately from some
local phone companies to others, in particular those carrying many calls to
an Internet services provider.
The phaseout plan would cap temporarily the number of calls one phone company
must pay when another completes calls from the first company's customers, the
Journal reported. After the phaseout period, the fees would be eliminated.
Companies competing with the Bells that carry a lot of traffic to Internet
services providers include Pac-West Telecomm Inc., Stockton, Calif., and
Focal Communications Corp., of Chicago.
Baby Bells would prefer an immediate elimination of the fees, since the Bells
pay a disproportionate amount of them, but officials say they could live with
the fees being phased out.
Mr. Kennard told the Journal that the plan to eliminate the fees was prompted
by the explosion of competitive local phone companies living off the fees by
carrying calls to Internet services providers. States would be given
flexibility in adopting the fee elimination, if the FCC approves it, he said.
They wouldn't be obligated to accept it if they already had a fee system that
worked well.
Originally, the fees, known as reciprocal compensation, were adopted at the
behest of the Bells and other incumbents. They were supposed to benefit the
incumbent phone companies, because customers of competing local phone
companies were calling their customers and therefore increasing the traffic
on the incumbent's phone network, the Journal reported.
But then competing phone companies were set up, and their business included
serving Internet services providers, which accept calls but don't make them.
Under the fee system, that one-way traffic tends to work against the Baby
Bells. The competing companies have said that if the fees were cut, it would
cause a hike in Internet access costs, because they would have to charge more
to carry the calls.
Mr. Kennard said he hopes for a decision on the plan before year end.
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones&Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Folder Name: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 68
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,022 |
Subject: Re: Hectic?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/743.
=====================================
Looks unlikely that we'll get to catch up this week.
I'm attempting to get to Big Sky, Montana for a
fantastic wedding weekend with my family, (Cousin
getting married). Hopefully leaving on Thursday-we'll
see what my onsite manager says about it tomorrow. I'm
skipping class tomorrow night.
And I am working every day for the next month up in
the Roseville, land o' HP. I'm staying up here,
commuting to school-which is what's killing me.
Plus-I have this increasing concern that I'm not
actually absorbing an MBA's worth of learning and
experiences. Alas-I'll tell you all about it when we
talk. I sent Diane an email to get the deadlines,
etc. Have a great time in Portland. 1/2 of the
classes? dangerous!!
Courntey
--- [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi: O lord. You know, the pace at school is so
> much nicer--actually have
> time to think about things and absorb it. But work
> has gotten so insane
> that I sympathize with your plight (since mine's the
> same). I think I've
> maybe made it to 1/2--that's 1/2--of the finance
> classes.
>
> NORTH of Sacramento. Are you driving to Sacramento
> every day? Say it
> ain't so. That's brutal.
>
> When you say full time, you mean school full time?
> That, I assume, means
> leaving your job? Be happy to talk about it. You
> know me---believer in
> always keeping all options open and active. If full
> time makes sense, you
> ought to do it.
>
> Unfortunately, though, it looks like I'll be missing
> class (again) on
> Tuesday because I have to be in Portland. If you're
> not going to Sac on
> Monday, coffee in SF during work hours works. Or I
> could meet you during
> break on Monday. Or we could have lunch or a beer
> after work on Thursday
> or Friday when I'm back from Portland.
>
> Hang in there. I was worried about you--seemed
> liked you'd gone
> underground again. Remember, life's too short to
> get too worried about it.
> Let me know what works for you.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
> PS I'm spending my Saturday nite working on a
> financial reporting case.
> Hope that's modest consolation.
>
> "Strategizing?!" (I don't think so.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Courtney Abernathy
>
>
> <courtney_abernathy@ To:
> [email protected]
>
> yahoo.com> cc:
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: Hectic?
>
> 09/30/2000 07:52 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Boy did I flake on the happy hour. Jeff-I think
> I've
> gone over THE edge. Hectic does't even work
> anymore.
> I'm on a (fairly)good project at HP..IN SACRAMENTO,
> in fact 20 miles north of Sacramento. I LOVE the
> company, the learning, the work, the teams, the
> people, the career opportunities. I hate the 4+
> hours
> of driving on Mondays and Tuesdays,
> strategizing(real
> word?) about balancing the needs of the team with
> getting my ass to school. I really want to talk to
> you...I'm thinking about full time and want your
> thoughts. Are you available at break on Tuesday for
> a
> beer?
> Courtney
> --- [email protected] wrote:
> > Hey there stranger:
> > By the looks of your attire (very nice), and the
> > pace of you walk the other
> > night, looks like you're back in the working
> groove.
> > Hope work is fun and
> > your classes are good. I'm trying to get used to
> > the "no life" thing
> > again. And you slacked on the happy hour.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15
> Free!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
=====================================
|
4,023 |
Subject: Fwd: FERC Eyes Making More Calif Pwr Sales Subject To Refund
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Deanna King', 'Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12247.
=====================================
This is troublesome
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:34:05 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]>, "Deanna King"
<[email protected]>, "Dan Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Ronald
Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: FERC Eyes Making More Calif Pwr Sales Subject To Refund
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
According to this article, FERC officials have indicated that FERC might
modify its 3 proxy price/refund orders to include sales made during Stage 1
and Stage 2 emergencies.
FERC Eyes Making More Calif Pwr Sales Subject To Refund
Updated: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 05:56 PM ET
By Bryan Lee
OF DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is
considering orders that would broaden the scope of California power sales -
subject to potential refund for overcharges, according to knowledgeable FERC
officials.
FERC has issued three refund orders to date, totaling nearly $125 million for
the first three months of this year.
In calculating the potential refunds, the commission limited its
consideration to power sales made during Stage 3 power-grid emergencies
declared by the California Independent System Operator.
Stage 3 alerts are the last step before the state's grid operator orders
rolling blackouts because demand has outstripped the system's ability to
deliver power.
The orders established proxy market-clearing prices for Stage 3 emergencies -
and ordered power providers to justify the higher costs or provide refunds to
the California ISO.
The orders were highly controversial, stirring criticism from California
officials and others who complained that the orders were too narrow and
failed to require refunds for unjust and unreasonable power costs during all
hours.
The California ISO has placed its overcharges at $6.2 billion for electricity
purchased during a 10-month period from May 2000 through February of this
year. The calculation wasn't limited to just grid-emergency hours.
By limiting refund liability to just Stage 3 emergencies, FERC sought $69
million in refunds for January, $55 million in February, and $587,000 for
March.
FERC Commissioner William Massey has decried the refund orders as "paltry"
and "arbitrary" and called for the commission to order refunds for power
sales during all hours, not just Stage 3 grid emergencies.
The broader refund orders under consideration by the commission won't go far
enough to satisfy Massey, California officials and other critics, however.
In acting on requests for rehearing of the three refund orders, the
commission is looking to also make sales during Stage 1 and Stage 2
emergencies subject to potential refund, according to FERC officials.
The commission on rehearing will adjust the refund orders to reflect the
California power price mitigation plan FERC approved late last month.
Under the order, the ISO going forward will establish cost-based
market-clearing prices for Stage 1, 2 and 3 emergencies. Power providers
would have to justify power sales above the proxy market-clearing price - or
make refunds to the ISO.
In light of the price mitigation order's consideration of all three stages of
power-grid emergencies declared by the ISO, "It doesn't make any sense to
have those stage 3 refund orders sticking out like a sore thumb," said a FERC
official, who confirmed the commission's intent to adjust the refund orders
on rehearing.
By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-6647, [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,024 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/874.
=====================================
Question: re: "cat herding." Do we have the participants list yet? I've
got a call in to Smutney (IEP)---Sue talked to him about the cap yesterday
and I'm piling on today. If we can give Smutney an alternative to "the $150
cap's OK," then we can likely persuade him. Tim: Be useful to know as soon
as possible if the alternative Steve suggests below (i.e., >$150 bids with no
disclosure) is palatable. If other specific CA generators are participating
on the panel, we'll need to know who they are in order to "assist" them with
their price cap-related comments.
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.
=====================================
|
4,025 |
Subject: Re: SCE Advice Filing on PX Credit -- Protest
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4133.
=====================================
We should protest this issue and argue that nothing should change but that
the Px credit should be based on DJ-NP15 and DJ-SP15 rather than the defunct
Px because AB1890 requires it to be based on market (not costs). Changing to
procured energy is inconsistent with the law AB1890 which requires DA
customers to be indifferent to buying from DA suppliers.
And since DA suppliers face costs close to DJ-NP15/SP15, that is the only
appropriate available method.
Further, the issue of how to calculate Px is interrelated to whether DA
customers should be charged the generation surcharges ($10 +$30). DA
customers should be given market based Px credits (based on DJNP15/SP15)
because its the law. There are 2 possible interpretations resulting from the
combination of AB1890 and the new law.
The DA customers should get a market based Px credit and not pay any
surcharge.
The DA customers should get a market based Px credit and pay the $30 + $10
surcharges
Interpretation 1 results in DA customers getting lower rates than all other
customers. It seems unlikely that the legislation would have this intent.
Interpretation 2 results in DA customers getting the same rate as all other
customers until the end of AB1890. This seems like the likely interpretation
since otherwise the new legislation would have repealled AB1890. Thus given
that the DA customers are being held indifferent to frozen rates plus $40,
they should get a Px market based credit plus pay the surcharge until the
rate freeze ends.
Once the Px credit ends (Mar 2002), the surcharge should end because the law
(AB1890) no longer requires them to be held at frozen rates and because:
Any customer that is being served by a supplier other than DWR and the
utility is not causing any costs for DWR or the utility therefore they should
not be charged for them.
In the event that Px credit is not set based on market value (if the courts
interpret the law differently than Enron) then there should be no generation
surcharge for DA customers.
This is the same argument we should make in our brief on rate setting
Scott
JBennett <[email protected]> on 04/20/2001 09:03:06 AM
To: "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Robert
Neustaedter (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Scott Stoness
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Tamara Johnson (Business Fax)"
<IMCEAFAX-Tamara+20Johnson+40+2B1+20+28713+29+20345-7374@GMSSR.com>
cc: "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Sue Mara (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>
Subject: SCE Advice Filing on PX Credit -- Protest
As you are aware, SCE made an advice filing on April 5th to eradicate the PX
Rate Schedule and Replace it with Schedule PE --Procured Energy. As part of
the filing, SCE proposes to set "on an interim basis" the cost of energy
procurement, for bundled service customers for billing purposes and in the
calculation of the energy credit for direct access customers equal to the
Generation rate component of the Customer's otherwise applicable tariff.
Two primary issues arise from SCE's statement. First what does "interim
basis" mean -- how long will this be in effect. In starts on January 19th,
but it is unclear as to when it would end. Second, and most important. is
what is meant by the Generation rate component. While there is not much
explanation in the April 5 advice letter, in a subsequent advice letter
filed on April 11 (1533-E), SCE set forth "Rate Schedule Specific Generation
Related Rates" which range between five and nine cents.
I have forwarded both the referenced advice letters to you earlier. We need
to protest the change in the PX credit by Wednesday, April 25th. All
thoughts on the matter are welcome.
Jeanne
=====================================
|
4,026 |
Subject: Enron Mentions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10382.
=====================================
USA: Broadband unit in strong shape, says Enron CEO.
Reuters English News Service, 03/23/01
Enron Corp. CEO: Core Businesses Are In 'Great Shape'
Dow Jones News Service, 03/23/01
Enron Says $3.1 Bln Portland General Sale Probably Won't Close
Bloomberg, 03/23/01
USA: Broadband unit in strong shape, says Enron CEO.
03/23/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
HOUSTON, March 23 (Reuters) - Enron Corp.'s broadband unit will execute
nearly twice as many trades in the first quarter of 2001 as it did in the
fourth quarter of 2000, Enron President and Chief Executive Officer Jeff
Skilling said on Friday.
"My expectation is that we will see over 400, maybe over 500 transactions
this quarter which shows this business is absolutely developing, it is ahead
of plans," Skilling said in a conference call that sought to assuage investor
fears about Enron's stock and its broadband unit specifically.
That is more than all 321 transactions done last year, and about twice the
236 done in the last quarter of 2000, he said.
Skilling also said long supply and a weak telecom market is offering Enron
greater and cheaper access to bandwidth capacity, which means Enron Broadband
Services' capital expenditure budget should drop from $750 million to $250
million.
Some analysts have attributed two consecutive days of price drops in Enron's
stock - it dipped as low as $51.55 on Thursday, from 60.95 on Tuesday - to
false rumors of layoffs at the nascent broadband business and the market's
devaluation of that unit in light of weak technology and telecom sectors.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Enron Corp. CEO: Core Businesses Are In 'Great Shape'
By Christina Cheddar
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
03/23/2001
Dow Jones News Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- After several days of decline, Enron Corp. (ENE)
shares were regaining ground Friday as Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling
addressed the market's concerns about the company.
During a conference call, Skilling told investors that the Houston company's
core businesses are in "great shape."
The executive also reiterated the company's 2001 earnings target of $1.70 to
$1.75 a diluted share.
The company's outlook compares with a consensus estimate of $1.74 a share
published by Thomson Financial/First Call.
Enron shares recently traded hands at $58.60, up $3.58, or 6.3%, on volume of
5.3 million compared with average turnover of 4 million.
On Thursday, Enron shares set a 52-week low of $51.51.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Enron Says $3.1 Bln Portland General Sale Probably Won't Close
2001-03-23 13:48 (New York)
Enron Says $3.1 Bln Portland General Sale Probably Won't Close
Houston, March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp., the largest
energy trader, said its $3.1 billion sale of Portland General
Electric Co. to Sierra Pacific Resources probably won't be
completed.
``There's probably a 5 percent probability that Sierra
Pacific's purchase of Portland General will be consummated,''
Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling said during a conference call
with investors.
Enron said in January that Sierra Pacific might not be able
to sell a Nevada power-plant stake as needed to win regulatory
approval for the Portland General transaction. Enron blamed a
California law that barred public utilities from shedding
generators until 2005 because of an electricity shortage.
Shares of Houston-based Enron rose $3.98 to $59 in
midafternoon trading. They had fallen 18 percent in the past week.
--Margot Habiby in Dallas (214) 740-0873, or
[email protected], and Jim Polson in Princeton,
(609) 279-4000/slb
=====================================
|
4,027 |
Subject: Re: Update on CESG Schedule
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4384.
=====================================
will be at both meetings and will have detailed proposals beforehand. we
continue to work on procurement piece and have reached teh same conclusion as
you in your note---need something to implement now, as well as a "longer"
term solution to IOU procurement. you'll be hearing from me.
Evelyn Kahl Elsesser <[email protected]>
12/06/2000 03:44 PM
To: Keith McCrea <[email protected]>, "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>, Ralph Cavanagh <[email protected]>, Bill Booth
<[email protected]>, Ann Cohn <[email protected]>, Jan Smutny-Jones
<[email protected]>, Delaney Hunter <[email protected]>, "Aaron
Thomas (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Carolyn McIntyre (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>, "John Fielder (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Tony
Braun (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
Barbara Barkovich <[email protected]>, Dominic DiMare
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Update on CESG Schedule
We have scheduled a telephone conference of the CESG on Tuesday, December
12th at 12:00 noon. The call-in number will be 1.800.377.4827, confirmation
number 7680189. I have scheduled 15 lines for 1.5 hours. We have also
scheduled a meeting of the group in Sacramento on Friday, December 15th, at
10:00 at the Chamber of Commerce's office.
In the interim, we should all be working toward building the strawpaper
outlined in yesterday's agenda. I plan to complete an outline of what we did
manage to agree to (or identify as proposals) yesterday by the end of
Friday. Other responsibilities include:
preparation by SCE, AES, Enron and the PX of proposals for a "benchmark"
against which, if necessary, individual purchases by the utility could be
measured for the next 1-2 years; proposals for longer term benchmarks for
measuring the reasonableness of the utility portfolio would be helpful, but
we need to focus on the short-run first. Also, throw out ideas on tolerance
bands, including a way to expand/contract the band with changes in
volatility, and risk/reward mechanisms for utility shareholders.
proposals by SCE, AES and the PX (and any others with ideas) regarding how we
can address in an overall solution the risk perceived by the utility of
customer attrition from the utility portfolio (e.g., term commitments, two
portfolios or a bifurcated single portfolio, etc.);
a proposal from SCE and CLECA regarding how to commoditize the utility
generating assets (assuming retention of the entitlement to the generation)
and allocate those assets to small/large customers as the foundational supply
component of two portfolios (overlaying longer term contracts in the small
customer portfolio and potentially shorter and medium term contracts in the
large customer portfolio).
proposals for mechanisms to provide customers with some ability to understand
the overall cost of utility procurement for comparison with ESP fixed price
contracts (e.g., publication of "actual" to date on a monthly basis,
forecast of fixed price, fixed price product offering).
Obviously, any other ideas you have will be welcomed.
We failed to make much progress on the design for any stabilized rate or TRA
undercollections. Consider more carefully (1) whether a "residual" (SCE) or
stand-alone (PG&E) calculation for procurement costs would best serve your
interests and (2) what level of increase could be tolerated effective early
2001. Also consider structural proposals for addressing the TRA
undercollections prior to the end of the rate freeze.
Our goal should be to close on a structure, with as many details as possible,
by Friday, December 15. Please call me for any reason that will help us move
this along.
=====================================
|
4,028 |
Subject: Re: Background for Enron Solution to California's Electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3383.
=====================================
Piper -- Ken Lay will be in town on Thursday morning, and we'd like to have a
meeting. Itt would be helpful to have a California CEO host the meeting and
encourage other CEOs to attend. Do you think Scott would reconsider? In the
event we find another venue, I'll be sure to pass along the information to
you and Scott.
Thanks so much for your help.
Karen
Piper Cole -- VP Global Public Policy <[email protected]> on 05/14/2001
12:15:12 PM
Please respond to Piper Cole -- VP Global Public Policy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Background for Enron Solution to California's Electricity
Crisis--Follow up from Meeting on 5.10.01
Any update on a meeting or conference call on Thursday?
Piper
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Piper Cole -- VP Global Public Policy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Background for Enron Solution to California's Electricity
Crisis--Follow up from Meeting on 5.10.01
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-MD5: 5xj62t01/dxaF3DU/5w20g==
I forwarded it to him--you had "eng" twice--it should be only once.
Piper
From: [email protected]
Subject: Background for Enron Solution to California's Electricity
Crisis--Follow up from Meeting on 5.10.01
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:07:10 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ENE-MTA01/Enron(Release 5.0.6 |December
14,
2000) at 05/14/2001 12:02:08 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Piper:
The email I sent on Friday to Scott McNealy's address (listed below) got
bounced back to me. Just wanted to make sure that you folks received the
materials.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/14/2001 12:05 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff To: [email protected],
Dasovich [email protected]
cc: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
[email protected], Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
05/11/2001 Subject: Background for Enron
Solution to
08:32 PM California's Electricity
Crisis--Follow
up from
Meeting on 5.10.01
Attached is additional background on the solution that Ken Lay discussed
today and that Enron is proposing as a comprehensive solution to
California's electricity crisis. If you have any questions, don't
hesitate to contact me at 415.782.7822 or on my pager at 888.916.7184.
Best regards,
Jeff
(See attached file: California Electricity Solution 0510.doc)
_____________________________________________________________________
_______
/______/\ Piper Cole
/_____ \\ \ Vice President, Global Public Policy
/______\ \\ / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
/______/ \/ / / 901 San Antonio Road, MS PAL1-554
/______/ / \//\ Palo Alto, CA 94303
\______\//\ / /
\______/ / /\ / Phone: 650/336-6633
\______/ \\ \ Fax: 650/336-0835
\______\ \\ E-Mail: [email protected]
\______\/ http://www.sun.com/policy
_____________________________________________________________________
_______
/______/\ Piper Cole
/_____ \\ \ Vice President, Global Public Policy
/______\ \\ / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
/______/ \/ / / 901 San Antonio Road, MS PAL1-554
/______/ / \//\ Palo Alto, CA 94303
\______\//\ / /
\______/ / /\ / Phone: 650/336-6633
\______/ \\ \ Fax: 650/336-0835
\______\ \\ E-Mail: [email protected]
\______\/ http://www.sun.com/policy
=====================================
|
4,029 |
Subject: RE: FW: Sempra OII
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3290.
=====================================
Sorry. I don't have an electronic copy. I forward you a hard copy in the
mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:31 AM
To: Cherry, Brian
Subject: Re: FW: Sempra OII
thanks very much. can you email me a copy of the OII? let's get together
for coffee sometime and discuss things.
"Cherry,
Brian" To: "'Dasovich, Jeff'"
<[email protected]>
<[email protected] cc:
> Subject: FW: Sempra OII
11/07/2000
06:59 PM
Jeff - Here is a synopsis of the Sempra OII.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cherry, Brian
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:16 AM
> To: Cherry, Brian; Williams, Ray; Johnson, Kirk;
Thomas,
> Dan (CGT Dir); Katz, Michael; Campbell, Benjamin; Bellenger, Geoffrey;
> Berkovitz, Trista; Gee, Dennis; Buchner, Les; Lindh, Frank (Law);
> Litteneker, Randall (Law); Niven, Andrew (Law); Sivley, Paul; McLafferty,
> Daniel; Lieu, Lisa; Anderson, David W (Law)
> Cc: Guliasi, Les
> Subject: Sempra OII
>
>
> Yesterday, the Commission issued an OII to determine
the
> adequacy of Sempra Energy's, SoCalGas' and SDG&E's gas transmission
> practices and to determine what measures need to be taken to correct any
> deficiencies. The OII orders the Sempra affiliates and parent to
> demonstrate that SDG&E's gas supply and transmission system are adequate
> to provide service to present and future core and noncore customers.
>
> As you may recall, the OII sprang from an AL that
SDG&E
> filed in August requesting emergency review and approval of its proposals
> to temporarily revise gas transportation service elections to its noncore
> customers. SDG&E subsequently pulled the advice letter after the
> Commission issued a resolution rejecting it and outlined an OII it was
> going to issue on this matter. The language in the OII that was issued
> yesterday is substantially similar to that which was in the Commission's
> original draft resolution.
>
> The Sempra companies have been ordered to appear at a
soon
> to be determined PHC to show cause and demonstrate that:
>
> 1. SDG&E has adequate gas transmission supply for the
> 2000/2001 winter heating season, as well as the longer term supply
> throughout the year. If supply is inadequate, SDG&E shall submit plans
> for obtaining adequate supply.
> 2. SDG&E gas and transmission supply is adequate to
meet
> anticipated need for gas fired generation. If not, SDG&E shall submit
> plans for obtaining adequate supply.
> 3. SDG&E's gas transmission service is not being
adversely
> affected by interests of its corporate affiliate.
> 4. Recently added demands on SDG&E's capacity are not
> negatively impacting supply for SDG&E's customers. and otherwise
> consistent with representations made to the Commission.
> 5. SDG&E's current gas curtailment rules are just and
> reasonable; if not, SDG&E shall propose changes.
>
> We are going to need to keep a careful eye on this
> proceeding as it develops to make sure it stays focused on events in
> southern California. Commission Bilas gave me assurances last week
before
> the OII was issued that it was a Sempra problem, not a statewide problem.
> However, given everyone's sensitivities to EG concerns, its a proceeding
> that could easily be expanded beyond its current narrow focus. I'll
> forward you all a copy of the order later today.
>
=====================================
|
4,030 |
Subject: FW: Direct Access Legislation and the impact on Settlement
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3410.
=====================================
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Holmes/HOU/EES on 05/14/2001 06:47
AM ---------------------------
Marty Sunde
05/13/2001 08:31 PM
To: Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Marcus Dotson/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier, Evan
Hughes, Chris Holmes/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Direct Access Legislation and the impact on Settlement
Discussion s with UC/CSU
fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Marty Sunde/HOU/EES on 05/13/2001 08:31
PM ---------------------------
From: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/11/2001 05:39 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Direct Access Legislation and the impact on Settlement
Discussion s with UC/CSU
fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: MDay <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:27 PM
To: 'Kristen Bird'; '[email protected]'; 'Richard.Sanders, Enron';
Williams, Robert C.
Cc: JBennett
Subject: Direct Access Legislation and the impact on Settlement Discussion s
with UC/CSU
Richard Sanders and Bob Williams asked that I provide the following brief
memo in order to summarize wherer the legislative efforts are at this time
and how they might impact settlement discussions.
With the close of the first extraordinary session today, a second
extraordinary session will open on Monday and all the existing but unpassed
bills will be reintroduced--so we are told. That means there will continue
to be at least 2 bills which would substantially protect the rights of
customers to choose direct access, although both contemplate that under
varying circumstances the customer could be required to pay an exit fee.
What is relatively likely is this:
A direct access bill will pass this session. It will likely create the
following situation:
Any customer who has not been on direct access continuously since before
January 17, 2001 will have used some power purchased by DWR while being
charged bundled utility rates far lower than the actual cost. If these
customers (like UC) eventually elect to return to direct access they WILL be
required to pay the shortfall that has accrued while they were on bundled
service.
Other stranded costs which may be incurred by DWR after the customer leaves
bundled service for direct access may also be passed on in an exit fee.
This would include stranded contract costs if DWR has contracted for more
long term power than it has customers, as well as any costs related to the
bond financing intended to pay for the long term power contracts. We HOPE
that the legislation will have a provision excusing the customers from such
an exit fee if DWR has not purchased all the net short power by long term
contracts and DWR can match its supply to the new lower demand simply by
reducing daily spot purchases.
UC would potentially face the first type of exit fee in any event, it may
face the second, although there is a possibility of a short "open
enrollement" period following passage of the bill, which would allow
customers to switch to DA immediately without paying the second type of exit
fee.
There may be other exceptions to the exit fees for customers who install
self generation or distributed generation. This might affect a few UC
campuses, but not all.
At least one of the bills might give the CPUC enough discretion to permit it
to impose onerous conditions on direct access and thereby prohibit it.
However, this provision is strongly opposed by many customer groups and we
believe it can be defeated.
We do not know when the direct access legislation will be adopted. We hope
within the next month. We will keep you advised, and please feel free to
call for an update at any time.
Mike Day
=====================================
|
4,031 |
Subject: Blossom End Rot
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/296.
=====================================
We definitely have a case of blossom-end rot...
Symptoms:
The bottom of tomatoes that are beginning to ripen turn black or brown.
Blossom-end rot begins when the fruit is about half grown, and continues to
develop as the fruit matures. The first symptom is a water-soaked area at
the blossom end (opposite the stem end) of the fruit. This spot will grow
larger, turning dark and sunken. It is usually worse on the first fruit
cluster but can be a problem throughout the season.
Pictures:
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~ftsgweb/BERDBC.htm
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/dp_hfrr/extensn/problems/blendrot.htm
http://130.111.117.57/images/diseases/tomato.jpg
Edibility:
Tomatoes that are already affected will continue to be deformed. They are
safe to eat, but the disorder reduces the amount of tomatoes that can be
used. If you have a lot of tomato plants, it might be best to pick off and
destroy the fruits that are severely affected.
Cause:
Water-related:
Blossom-end rot is not caused by a pathogen, so it is not an infectious
problem. It results from a calcium deficiency in the plant caused by large
fluctuations in soil moisture. When soil moisture is limited, plant growth
slows and nutrient uptake by the roots is reduced. If water becomes
available again, from rain or irrigation, the plant begins to grow rapidly
but the uptake of calcium lags behind. In this way the rapidly expanding
fruit tip does not have enough calcium available to develop properly, even
though there is plenty of calcium in the soil.
Soil-related:
Another cause of blossom end rot is over-fertilization, especially of
nitrogen, which stimulates vegetative growth. Excessive vegetative growth
increases the transpiration surface and further prevents calcium
accumulation in the fruit. Tomato varieties with large amounts of foliage
tend to be more susceptible to blossom end rot because the leaves require
calcium. Adjust the nitrogen rate for each cultivar to reduce blossom end
rot. Avoid ammoniacal forms of nitrogen that compete with calcium during
uptake from the soil.
Treatment:
Water-related:
The best method for controlling blossom-end rot is to maintain even and
adequate levels of soil moisture. In such conditions, plants grow at an even
rate and the nutrients stay in balance. Do not let the soil dry excessively
between waterings, as this stimulates blossom-end rot. Mulch to conserve
moisture. Mulching plants with straw, newspapers, or thin layers of grass
clippings can help to control blossom end rot.
Soil-related:
Check soil pH and soil nutrient levels annually and incorporate the amount
of lime into the soil to adjust the pH to between 6.5 to 6.7 if necessary.
Have your soil tested by the university or other lab. If the calcium is low
but the pH is OK, add gypsum.
Adjust the nitrogen rate to the type of tomato being grown to avoid
excessive vegetation. Use nitrogen in the form of potassium or calcium
nitrate and avoid ammonium nitrate. Apply potassium, phosphorus, and
magnesium as recommended because balancing these nutrients with calcium is
also important in preventing blossom end rot. The primary factor, however,
is maintaining uniformly adequate soil moisture throughout the season.
Calcium-rich fertilizers show mixed results in controlling this problem,
often because calcium deficiency in the soil is not the problem. If calcium
nitrate or other fertilizers are used, they should be applied to the leaves
and tomatoes when the tomatoes are about grape size. Brand names include
Tomato Saver and Blossom-End Rot Preventer. Be sure the fertilizer is meant
to be used as a leaf spray.
Other Links:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/additional/agrifacts/tomato_q.a.html
(Read this for info about how to ripen green tomatoes at the end of the
season)
=====================================
|
4,032 |
Subject: Re: Edited Draft of FERC Presentation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/50.
=====================================
I have made a number of edits of the presentation today. There are many more
to go. I think that we can get it shaped up by Friday. It will require a
lot of coordination to shape it up by Thursday. In the event that it can't
be whipped into shape by Thursday, I think that we need to boil it down to a
few themes that we present at the group meeting. We then can finish the
presentation and get it to FERC Friday AM before the call. Who is making the
final call on this? How are we going to coordinate?
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: Ellen Wolfe <[email protected]> 08/23/2000
02:29 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: James D Steffes <[email protected]>
cc: Mary Hain <[email protected]>, Joe Hartsoe <[email protected]>,
Sarah Novosel <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
<[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman <[email protected]>, Tim Belden
<[email protected]>, Susan J Mara <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Edited Draft of FERC Presentation
Jim and others,
I think we are suffering from not enough time to fully iterate this, as well
as little information on what
others are going present.
The basic messages as I see them (and not having trued this up with Mary or
others) are:
1. The markets are working consistent with physics and economics; demand is
up, supplies are down and higher
prices are resulting.
2. Characteristics of the retail markets have resulted in risks being passed
to end users. Are such issues
impeding wholesale markets? If so, perhaps FERC can influence movement in
this area.
3. We shouldn't equate outcomes at the retail level with bad structure at
wholesale level. The key is to
distinguish the retail issues so that FERC can focus on the wholesale issues.
4. Any remaining concerns should be studied further rather than simply
receiving blame for the outcomes we've
seen: Whether there is market power? Whether rather it's a matter of
scarcity rents? What are appropriate
scarcity rents? Is monopsony power on the buyers' side (utilities) causing
undesirable economic and reliability
outcomes. (And out of this should be consideration of whether an
across-the-board $250 cap is the right one,
especially given that the ISO staff itself recognizes that this is a poor
proxy for what buyers are willing to
pay as scarcity rents.)
That's my 2 cents. I don't know what Mary's additional thoughts are, nor how
what other parties will say may
affect what we should emphasize.
Certainly, though, your feedback is invaluable. If you reply with feedback
I'll do what I can to see that
Enron's message reflects your preferences.
Regards,
Ellen.
James D Steffes wrote:
> Mary & Joe --
>
> Given the time frame for our response (2 - 4 minutes), we need to prepare
not
> only our "leave behind" but also our "oral message".
>
> I want to make sure that everyone agrees with the theme and content of our
> verbal discussions. Can you please put out an outline of the message and
> details and then make sure the Trading desk and CA Govt Affairs agree with
the
> form and delivery (set up a conference call if necessary)?
>
> This is a very complicated issue and very short time frame to deliver. The
more
> we prepare I think the better we'll do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: August 24 presentation
to FERC1.ppt
> August 24 presentation to FERC1.ppt Type: Microsoft PowerPoint
Show (application/vnd.ms-powerpoint)
> Encoding: base64
> Description: Microsoft PowerPoint 97
- ellen.vcf
=====================================
|
4,033 |
Subject: FW: Inland Daily Bulletin story about AReM
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/56.
=====================================
Hey we got press in the "Inland Daily Bulletin" -- from one of our new AReM members
-----Original Message-----
From: Manuel, Erica [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 10:29 AM
To: Allen, Stevan; AReM; Douglas Oglesby (E-mail) (E-mail); Fairchild,
Tracy; Frank; Joseph Alamo (E-mail) (E-mail); Manuel, Erica; Megan
Beiser; Norm Plotkin; Warner, Jami
Subject: Inland Daily Bulletin story about AReM
The following article was published in the Inland Daily Bulletin yesterday.
As you will see, both Frank and I are quoted (even though I explicitly
requested that I not be quoted since I am not a spokesperson for coalition).
Nevertheless, our messages are made pretty clear.
Also, I apologize for not sending this sooner - It was somehow overlooked in
our daily searches for AReM coverage.
Erica Manuel
Edelman Worldwide / Sacramento
916/442-2331 phone
916/447-8509 fax
[email protected]
Esp provider
Published Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:00:00 AM
By Mike Rappaport
Staff Writer
Frank Annunziato of Upland has been providing electric power to
nearly 200 customers for about four years.
But if a draft decision by the California Public Utilities
Commission is voted into effect next Thursday, Annunziato and 20 to 25 other
members of the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets will take a hit.
The decision would prohibit electrical service providers like
Annunizato from entering into new contracts to provide direct-access power
to customers, and the revised version released Monday would take the
original effective date of Sept. 1, 2001, and make it retroactive to July 1.
Electrical service providers purchase power from various sources -
in Annunziato's case it's the excess from municipal power authorities - and
sell that power to customers who would rather not buy from Southern
California Edison.
"That was one of the purposes of deregulation," Annunziato said. "To
open up the market and give people choices of where to buy their power."
Annunziato's company, American Utility Network, services nearly 200
Southern California customers. He is able to provide low-cost power because
he signed long-term contracts for power before prices skyrocketed. In the
short term, a restriction on new contracts won't affect him.
"I'm not taking on any new customers right now anyway," he said.
"I'm limited in the amount of power I have, and I'm pretty close to
capacity."
But not being able to renew those contracts - or to sign up other
customers to replace those who would leave normally - will eventually put
him out of business.
The Alliance for Retail Energy Markets is the lobbying group that
represents Annunziato and other independent providers. AReM opposes the PUC
draft decision and calls it "an illegal act under the U.S. Constitution to
abrogate existing contracts."
"This decision just came out of left field," said AReM spokeswoman
Erica Manuel. "They claim they need to do this to protect the state's
ability to issue bonds, but it doesn't make sense. We certainly don't want
retroactive suspensions and we will try to prevent any lengthy suspensions."
As of July, independent providers had 60,000 residential customers,
6,800 commercial customers, 250 industrial customers and 350 agricultural
customers across California, according to Manuel.
"These are existing contracts," she said. "At this point, if they
try to negate existing contracts there will be a legal battle."
Kyle DeVine at the PUC said Monday's announcement was only a draft
decision and that nothing would happen before Sept. 6.
"It has not taken effect," she said. "All this is just part of the
comments we're looking for."
Mike Rappaport can be reached by e-mail at
[email protected] or by phone at (909) 483-8556.
=====================================
|
4,034 |
Subject: [Fwd: name blank]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/personal/31.
=====================================
FYI...looks bleak for riding with Lari in January. I get tired just
looking at her schedule!
Madeleine
--
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]
Received: from mail.mcn.org (mail.mcn.org [204.189.12.25]) by
emu.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11551 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:32:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rjiredff (ha-1e-men-p2-m04.mcn.org [204.189.5.88]) by
mail.mcn.org (8.9.0/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA23653 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:59 -0800
To: Madeleine Todd <[email protected]>
From: Lari Shea <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: name blank
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Hi Madeleine,
Have a great time in Chili..... Just a thought, .....my daughter, Kyala,
has a friend who's family runs a river fishing and horseback riding
vacation place in Argentina....email Ky a <[email protected]> to ask how
to contact them, if you are interested.
I'd love for you folks to come up again in January, although I will only be
here for a few days out of the month. However, Helene could "lead" your
ride, and I'll bet Harvey would like to join you. I'll be on the
millenium trek from Jan 13th on. I'm here from FEb 10th to 22nd, then
gone for another couple weeks. I'm planning for "special" rides once a
month for the next year....would love to have you and yours be here for as
many of them as possible!
Here's the info for them...
Rates: $195 per day/arrange your own lodging & meals/ bring your own lunch/
English or Western horses available/ join other compatable RRR riders.
Sign up for as many/few days each weekend as you like. Carpool information
from San Francisco Bay area available.
Also available: 3 ($75.00) or 4 hour ($100) rides. If you would prefer to
have a "private" excursion, just whomever is in your group with a guide,
surcharge of $25 (3 hours), $35 (4 hours, or $45 (all day) applies.
Thanksgiving Get-Together:
November 26, Nov 27 1999
Y-2-K Millenium Bash
December 31, 1999, Jan 1, 2000 , Jan 2, 2000
Valentine's for Singles, Couples, & "Others"
February 13, 14 , 2000
Spring is Mendocino Weekend
April 8, 9, 2000
Wild Iris, Full Moon Weekend
May 20, 21, 2000
Escape to the Redwoods Weekend
June 10, 11, 2000
Mendocino Music Festival Weekend
July 22, 23, 2000
Beach and Redwoods Weekend
August 26, 27, 2000
Fall Frolic Weekend
October 7, 8, 2000
Full Moon Mushroom Madness Weekend
November 11, 12, 2000
Thanksgiving Get-Together
November 25, 26, 2000
New Year's Bash
December 30, 31, 2000
I'm off to Zimbabwe for my "foster" daughter's wedding on Dec 6th....will
be gone til nearly New Year's Eve. Then to Florida for a family weekend,
and leaving Jan 14 for New Zealand. So.....have a great holiday...hope
to catch you some time over the winter....and if not we'll certainly ride
together in the Spring.
Cheers,
Lari
Lari Shea http://www.horse-vacation.com
Ricochet Ridge Ranch 707-964-7669 ranch phone
24201 North Highway One 707-964-9669 office ph/fax
Fort Bragg, CA 95437 707-202-0187 fax
Riding Vacations on the Mendocino Coast
with lodging at unique B&B Inns
International Riding Vacations
Akhal Teke and Russian Orlov/cross horses for sale
At stud: RRR Russia
=====================================
|
4,035 |
Subject: Re: QF Meeting Today--Highlights
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9576.
=====================================
Are we working on this in Sacramento? Do we have language? What is the
level of interest?
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/01/2001 09:05 PM -----
Mark Fillinger@ECT
02/28/2001 02:18 PM
To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Hap
Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: QF Meeting Today--Highlights
For the last two days I participated in the negotiations between several QFs
and the utilities regarding implementation of SBX 47. The goal of the meeting
was to present a substantially complete "Agreement of Long-Term Gas Purchase
Arrangement" to Battin this Thursday. Through this document they intend to
describe what the parties have agreed to and the changes required in the bill
to conform to the parties agreement.
Attendees included PG&E and SDG&E (SCE is clearly opposed to the bill),
Calpine, El Paso, Sithe and the CCC represented by White and Case. It appears
that SDG&E's support for the bill is weakening with their mantra being "if
this doesn't guarantee a price reduction over the five years we won't support
the bill." We explained that the goal is not so much overall price reduction
as price stabilization, with current period price reduction. PG&E clearly
gets it.
I was successful in introducing and inserting the financial hedging option
into the Gas Agreement. Both PG&E and SDG&E are very supportive of such an
option as they are currently prohibited from entering into such arrangements.
It is less clear if the large QFs are supportive. Their primary goal is to
find a safe harbor from the Wood decision for the next five years. I also
believe the proposed gas procurement structure provides some option value to
the larger QFs.
Although it looks like our language will be in the Gas Agreement, I think we
need to get some language in the bill itself. I am working with Sandi and
Mike Day to make that happen. We may also want to add the concept of economic
dispatch to the bill. Mike, do you have any suggested language that I could
forward to Sandi and Mike Day? Finally, I suggest we try and set up
individual meetings with the utilities (including SCE) to discuss our ideas
further. I'm not sure what other conversations are occurring with the
utilities, but I would be happy to set up the meetings with the appropriate
people.
Thanks,
Mark
Alan Comnes
02/27/2001 08:32 PM
To: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F
Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark Fillinger/SF/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: QF Meeting Today--Highlights
Despite the fact the bill, by itself, does not guarantee payment for overdue
receivables, the QFs on today's call decided to go forward and push for SBX
47 irrespective of the progress on SBX 33. A press conference is planned for
Friday by IEP. Bowen, who heads up the first committee that this bill will
go through will have hearings on this bill on Tuesday at the earliest.
Jan S-J asked every QF to fax to IEP a description of all QF generation and
the zip code of each project so that they can begin lobbying specific
legislators. A significant PR push is planned.
SBX 47 is opposed by SCE. PG&E's position appears more ambivalent. One
angle would be to try to get PG&E to support Enron's swap/SC language and
make inclusion of such language a condition of PG&E's support.
GAC
=====================================
|
4,036 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ Calif Utils, State Not Close To Pwr Lines Sales Deal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3683.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/15/2001 09:49 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
03/15/2001 08:40 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]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: DJ Calif Utils, State Not Close To Pwr Lines Sales Deal
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Thu, 15 Mar
2001 08:11:17 -0600 -----
To: "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]>, "Charles Ingebretson"
<[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman" <[email protected]>,
"Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Watkiss"
<[email protected]>, "Gene Godley" <[email protected]>, "Kimberly
Curry" <[email protected]>, "Michael Pate" <[email protected]>, "Ronald
Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ Calif Utils, State Not Close To Pwr Lines Sales Deal
FYI
DJ Calif Utils,State Not Close To Pwr Lines Sales Deal -Exec
Copyright , 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--California doesn't appear to be close to reaching a
deal to buy the power lines owned by the state's three investor-owned
utilities and restore the companies to financial stability, a utility
executive told Dow Jones Newswires Wednesday.
Gov. Gray Davis said this week that progress was being made and a final
agreement between the state and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric,
Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy
(SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric could be reached in either "days or
weeks."
But the tone in Davis's office when asked about the negotiations has
changed.
"The governor realizes it's in everyone's interest to resolve this as
quickly as possible, but only if we get a good deal for California
ratepayers, not at the expense of California ratepayers," said Steve
Maviglio, the governor's press secretary.
A senior executive with Edison International, which has already reached
an agreement in principle with Davis to sell the state its power lines for
$2.76 billion, said Wednesday the company is "not getting much reaction from
the state on a final agreement and there is a growing concern that time is
running out."
"Obviously I don't think the status quo can go on much longer," the
executive said. "The urgency rests with the governor's office. The ball is in
his court."
The executive wouldn't say what is delaying a final resolution.
The Davis plan, introduced last month, would have the state buy the
power lines owned by the utilities for about $7.5 billion and allow the
utilities to issue bonds to restructure any remaining debt.
Maviglio wouldn't elaborate on the negotiations, but an aide to Davis
who is familiar with the negotiations said the talks between PG&E have fallen
through.
"They've completely broke down," the aide said. "The (Davis
administration) hasn't negotiated with PG&E for about a week."
A PG&E spokesman wouldn't comment on the negotiations.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 15-03-01
DJ Calif Utils -2: Calif Gov: Talks Continue, Progress Made
The Davis administration said on the record that negotiations continue
and they are meeting with all three utilities and continue to make progress,
said Steve Maviglio, press secretary to Governor Davis.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 15-03-01
=====================================
|
4,037 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly; Time to Focus on Valuation!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13347.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW060401.doc>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 4.0% Last week our IPP composite fell 4.0%, underperforming
both the NASDAQ (+2.4%) and the S&P 500 (-1.1%). Reflecting strong first
quarter earnings results, International Power was the best performer in the
group, rising 3.4%. Calpine was the weakest performer, declining 10.3%.
2. New Issuance, Soft Power Prices and Political Questions Dampen Price
Performance In our view, the group's recent lackluster stock price
performance reflects the following: 1) Pressure Resulting from Equity New
Issuance Activity; 2) Concern Over "Soft" Spot and Forward Power Prices;
and, 3) Lingering Uncertainty Surrounding the Power Shift in the US Senate.
3. Outlook Unchanged; Time to Focus on Valuation! Despite the various
political and power market concerns, we believe the fundamental investment
outlook for the group remains strong. While fixating on the various
political and power market concerns, we believe the market has not focused
enough on increasingly attractive current valuations. We believe the
uncertainties surrounding re-regulation and political backlash are already
embedded in the stock prices. While the pure play US IPP share prices have
increased 3.1% on average, our 2001 and 2002 EPS estimates have increased
nearly 25% and 24%. Consequently, over the period the average P/E multiple
has declined by 17% and 20%, based on 2001 and 2002 EPS, respectively.
4. Embedded Expectations are Low We draw 2 conclusions from the above
data: 1. Stock prices reflect normalized power market conditions 2.
Re-regulation and backlash uncertainty are already reflected in stock
prices.
5. WSJ Article Questions CPN's Lack of Reserves On June 1, 2001, an
article appeared in the Wall Street Journal highlighting the fact that CPN
has not taken reserves against nearly $267 million of receivables from PG&E.
In our view, CPN's rationale for not reserving against its PG&E receivables
is valid. Versus the other major IPPs, CPN's PG&E exposure is unique in
that all of its current receivables have resulted from direct power sales to
PG&E under long-term contracts. Regardless, it is important to put this
issue into perspective. Even assuming a worst case scenario under which CPN
is unable to recover any of its PG&E receivables (highly unlikely), the
investment merits of the CPN story would be unaffected. Failure to recover
would have no impact on CPN's future earnings power or growth rate.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
Bryan Sifert 212/325-3906
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
- IPW060401.doc
=====================================
|
4,038 |
Subject: Kathleen Connell
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12832.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/21/2001 06:11 PM -----
=09Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
=0905/21/2001 04:31 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>, Mike Day <[email protected]>, B=
ev=20
Hansen <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Susan J Mara=
=20
<[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman <[email protected]>, Michael McDonald=
=20
<[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin <[email protected]>,=
=20
Rick Shapiro <[email protected]>, Jim Steffes <[email protected]>,=
=20
Alan Comnes <[email protected]>, Steven Kean <[email protected]>, Kar=
en=20
Denne <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"=20
<[email protected]>, Leslie Lawner <[email protected]>, Rober=
t=20
Frank <[email protected]>, Ken Smith <[email protected]>, Janel=20
Guerrero <[email protected]>, Miyung Buster <[email protected]=
>,=20
Jennifer Thome <[email protected]>, Eric Letke <[email protected]>,=
=20
Mary Schoen <[email protected]>, David Leboe <[email protected]>, B=
an=20
Sharma <[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Kathleen Connell
The following notes are from Ken Smith from State Controller Kathleen
Connell's press conference today:
California State Controller Kathleen Connell held a press conference
today. Although the Dow Newswire said it would be to disclose long-term
contracts, the event focused on what she believes will be an additional
need for borrowing beyond the energy bonds.
She anticipates an additional $4 billion in borrowing will be needed in
February to meet expected costs. The borrowing should, she said, be
done as Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs), short-term notes at a lower
interest rates (about 4%) that must be paid back by the end of the year,
rather than as additional energy bonds. She categorized the current
budget situation as =01&the same kind of environment as a bad budget year,=
=018
and said California should maintain at least a 3% reserve.
She did not comment on individual contracts except to say there are 17
different contracts.
Charts her office had prepared showed that $5.136 billion had been spent
on energy purchases through 5/17/01; about 99% of that went to spot
market purchases. There was also a chart that showed projected
expenditures under the Governor=01,s plan to be $8.349 billion for the
period January 1-June 1, 2001, with about 89% of that going to spot
market purchases. How these numbers work together was confusing =01) I
checked with a reporter, who said he was also unclear. I=01,ll try to get
this cleared up this afternoon.
An easel held a large photocopy of a $533 million check to Mirant, which
is the largest energy check written to date. More has been paid to
Reliant =01) she put it at about 25% of total expenditures =01) but =01&we =
have
never written a check to Reliant over $500 million=018 because of the way
they invoice.
She said the Governor=01,s financial assumptions for power =01&do not fit i=
nto
the most likely scenario=018 and that summer conditions will greatly affect
the actual spending needs. She noted that DWR estimates it will spend
$9.2 billion through June 30, 2002, although the PUC has only authorized
$7.5 billion.
The other significant announcement was that she plans to use her
authority with the Board of Equalization to hold hearings to determine
whether power plants sold by utilities have been properly assessed for
property taxes. Apparently, they are still on the tax rolls at previous
rates, but she believes the profits recorded by some generators means
the plants may be more valuable than their current assessments.
A press release was not distributed at the event, although there may be
one issued later today.
=====================================
|
4,039 |
Subject: NEWS: human interest story
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12263.
=====================================
* from CNN.com today
Many in CA fear high bills more than blackouts
SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Ray Marquez wonders whether he'll have to cut
back on food or gas in order to pay his electricity bill.
The 34-year-old Orange County maintenance man usually pays $80 a month for
power during summer months. Now, he's trying to figure out how to pay an
electricity bill that could push $130 come June 1.
"Since I got married and had children, you know, I've been dealing with
balancing bills," he said Wednesday. "But if I now have to pay more for
electricity, I'm not going to have money for gas or food for the kids."
As Californians coped with rolling blackouts that darkened thousands of
businesses and homes Monday and Tuesday, many struggled with an even bigger
worry: how to pay for soaring energy costs.
In March, the state Public Utilities Commission approved the biggest rate
increase in California history, up to 46 percent for customers of Southern
California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric. Those rate hikes start hitting
customers in next month's bill.
Gailen Kyle, who raises alfalfa on 1,600 acres in the Mojave Desert, says a
40 percent increase would put his farm out of business.
"It would end us," the third-generation farmer said. "Everybody here that
farms alfalfa would be out of business."
Kyle, 46, said he has to pump water nearly around the clock from wells
drilled 310 feet below his farm near Lancaster. A small increase in the price
of energy a few months ago added $80,000 to the $400,000 annual bill he was
already paying.
To save money, Kyle agreed to become an "interruptible" customer, meaning he
voluntarily allows his power to be shut off during statewide electricity
shortages in exchange for reduced rates. So far this year, his power has been
cut 26 times.
Even before the state utilities commission raised rates, residents were
paying 26 percent more for electricity than the nationwide average, according
to federal statistics. Only customers in New England, New York, Alaska and
Hawaii pay more.
One of the problems is that the wholesale cost of electricity has risen
sharply over the past year but under California's 1996 deregulation law the
state's largest utilities, PG&E and SoCal Edison, have been prevented from
passing their costs to customers. In April, PG&E declared bankruptcy.
The West isn't just facing spiraling costs and a shortage of supplies,
however. Its transmission system is fragmented and overworked and would take
years to improve, power officials told the region's governors Wednesday.
"There is no immediate solution," said Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, one of
four governors participating in a six-hour, round-table meeting with industry
representatives.
The Western Governors Association was told there is no established method for
paying for transmission upgrades, and market and regulatory barriers stand in
the way. It's not even clear where new power lines are most needed.
The group, which included the governors of Utah, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming,
has given energy experts until July 15 to recommend ways to eliminate
bottlenecks.
Meanwhile Californians, who've already weathered six days of rolling
blackouts this year, fear they'll soon be paying more for less service.
The Independent System Operator, which runs the state's power grid, has
forecast more than 30 days of blackouts this summer due to severe shortages
of electric supply.
Dee Ann Hendirx, 53, of San Francisco, has stocked up on candles and
battery-operated clocks.
"I hate to say this but it's getting to be a way of life in California," she
said.
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
=====================================
|
4,040 |
Subject: Enron Receives Dynegy $1.5B Cash Infusion Tues. >DYN ENE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1669.
=====================================
Send to your favorite counterparty.
Enron Receives Dynegy $1.5B Cash Infusion Tues. >DYN ENE
By Christina Cheddar
11/14/2001
Dow Jones News Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Dynegy Inc. (DYN) provided Enron Corp. (ENE) Tuesday with the $1.5 billion cash infusion envisioned in the companies' merger agreement, a Dynegy spokeswoman said.
Dynegy received preferred stock and other rights in an Enron unit that owns the Northern Natural Gas pipeline in return for its investment.
The cash infusion, which was made with the assistance of Dynegy's largest shareholder, ChevronTexaco Corp. (CVX), is aimed at providing Enron with additional cash liquidity to support its core energy marketing and trading operations.
The rights provide Dynegy with the option to acquire the pipeline unit should the two companies fail to complete their merger. The deal, which still needs shareholder and regulatory approval, is expected to close within the next six to nine months.
Dynegy is acquiring Enron for 0.2685 of a Dynegy share, or about $10 billion based on the recent price of Dynegy shares.
The acquisition of Enron by its smaller rival follows a series of disclosures about Enron's financial dealings with partnerships run by some of its corporate officers. The dealings are under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the center of more than a dozen of shareholder lawsuits.
During the last month, Enron watched as its share price sunk to a small fraction of its earlier levels as shareholder confidence in the trading company evaporated. As credit-rating agencies began to cut Enron's debt ratings threatening the company's investment-grade status, the company scrambled to raise additional cash to shore up its balance sheet and protect confidence in its business.
Industry experts viewed Dynegy's cash infusion as one way the companies sought to bolster confidence in the energy trader's liquidity, and protect its most valuable business.
In a conference call earlier Wednesday, Enron said its core energy trading business has been temporarily hurt by the uncertainty created by recent events.
According to Dynegy spokeswoman Jennifer Rosser, the preferred stock Dynegy has received for its investment in Enron is convertible into the common stock of the Enron pipeline unit.
Dynegy also has the right to convert the preferred stock into Enron shares if it desires, the spokeswoman said.
For example, if Enron were to cancel its merger with Dynegy in order to accept a higher bid from another suitor, Dynegy might decide to convert its preferred shares into Enron stock in order to reap the profits created by an increase in Enron's stock price, Rosser said.
In either case, Dynegy wouldn't be required to pay any additional consideration.
Dynegy was able to make the cash infusion after ChevronTexaco, of San Francisco, made an investment in Dynegy.
If the acquisition closes as anticipated, ChevronTexaco, which owns about one-fourth of Dynegy, plans to make an additional $1 billion investment in the combined company. ChevronTexaco also has the right to purchase an additional $1.5 billion in Dynegy stock in the first three years following the close of the acquisition.
Enron officials said they are monitoring the energy market's reaction to the cash infusion, and hopes it will restore the confidence of its counterparties.
Enron remains on a credit watch at the credit-rating agencies. Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's each have Enron rated one notch above speculative grade.
-By Christina Cheddar, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5166; [email protected]
Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,041 |
Subject: BGE Schedule S filing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/566.
=====================================
I wanted to bring to this group's attention the Maryland PSC staff's commen=
ts=20
regarding BGE's standby service proposal. The proposal in its current form=
=20
is a result of numerous settlement meetings among BGE, staff, Enron, Trigen=
=20
(a developer of on-site generation), and several large industrial customers=
. =20
In staff's comments, it talks about the DG-related issues raised -- but not=
=20
addressed -- by BGE's filing, and it encourages the Commission to adopt=20
state-wide policies to promote a vibrant competitive market for DG=20
services. Harry -- it appears that our many hours spent educating the sta=
ff=20
(and others) on DG issues was well worth the time. Significantly, staff=
=20
states in its comments that: =20
"A third issue that can impact the adoption of DG services is that of=20
interconnection policies. Interconnection policy differences between the=
=20
IOUs (statewide) can significantly retard the development of a vibrant DG=
=20
industry for services to customers. As with other aspects of electric=20
restructuring, Staff believes that common accepted rules that have statewid=
e=20
applicability will promote electric services competition. Hence, the=20
adoption of =01&one=018 set of interconnection standards could provide a go=
od=20
incentive for developing a DG services market in Maryland. Staff believes=
=20
that eventually, the State of Maryland may need to adopt 'a proposed' set o=
f=20
interconnection standards that apply Statewide."
Further, staff talks about the benefits of DG:
"Increasing the use of DG services could help Customers by decreasing their=
=20
costs and adding flexibility to their use of electricity services. Some=20
parties could argue that increasing use of DG would also help BGE and allow=
=20
it to avoid unneeded investments in T&D. The net result would provide=20
greater diversity of demand in the wire delivery system and improve overall=
=20
electricity service efficiency. Staff is of the opinion that a fuller=20
adoption of DG services is a positive development, which can provide benefi=
ts=20
to customers of BGE as well as the IOUs, in terms of avoided (and perhaps=
=20
unnecessary) investments in T&D, and also provide benefits to the State of=
=20
Maryland in terms of a more efficient electric service industry, including=
=20
environmental benefits."=20
Please let me know if you would like a copy of BGE's standby filing.
Lisa
---------------------- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/HOU/EES on 05/19/2000 10:41 A=
M=20
---------------------------
[email protected] on 05/19/2000 08:53:35 AM
=09
To:[email protected], [email protected],=20
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]=
,=20
[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], [email protected], [email protected]=
s,=20
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Lisa=20
Yoho/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected]
cc:[email protected]
=09
Subject:=09BGE Schedule S filing
Greetings: Attached are Staff's comments submitted to the Commission with
respect to BGE's Schedule S filing. This item will be before the Maryland
Commission, at the May 24, 2000, Administration Meeting. (See attached
file: R-1544cover.doc)(See attached file: R-1544text.doc)
If you have any questions about this matter, you may contact me at (410)
767-8026 (prior to 5/23), or Calvin Timmerman at (410) 767-8058.
Many Thanks,
Gunter
- R-1544cover.doc
- R-1544text.doc
=====================================
|
4,042 |
Subject: Article: Bids Made For Broke NorthPoint
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9714.
=====================================
FYI. xoxoxoxoxo
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/06/2001 05:40 PM -----
Margo Reyna
03/06/2001 05:05 PM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephen D
Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Xi Xi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Eric Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Karen Huang/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Matthew
Jachimiak/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Patrick Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Article: Bids Made For Broke NorthPoint
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 03/06/2001 05:00 PM -----
[email protected]
03/06/2001 04:58 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecom Services: Broadband Services: Bids Made For Broke NorthPoint
Bids Made For Broke NorthPoint
Dick Kelsey, Newsbytes
03/06/2001
Newsbytes News Network
(c) Copyright 2001 Post-Newsweek Business Information, Inc. All rights
reserved.
EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 2001 MAR 6 (NB). Bidding started today on
bankrupt broadband services provider Northpoint Communications Group
[NASDAQ:NPNTQ], more than three months after Verizon Communications [NYSE:VZ]
killed the companies' merger plan.
Northpoint did not identify bidders or discuss the amount of bids received,
citing a "quiet period" that precludes disclosure of such details.
"It is our hope to sell the company as a whole, but we cannot speculate on
the outcome of this structured sale process," Northpoint Communications
President and CEO Liz Fetter said in a news release.
Bidding is scheduled to close on March 20 and the winning bid will be
submitted to bankruptcy court the next day, Northpoint said.
Emeryville, Calif.-based Northpoint filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection on Jan. 16, six weeks after Verizon scuttled the companies' plans
to merge. Northpoint has since sued Verizon for $1 billion in damages over
cancellation of the merger.
Verizon on Nov. 29 pulled out of the $800 million merger agreement, citing
Northpoint's deteriorating financial condition. The companies intended to
merge their digital subscriber line (DSL) businesses into a national
broadband company.
Northpoint spokesman Marvin Wamble told Newsbytes that the company currently
employs 1,065 people, down from its peak level of 1,800 workers last year.
Northpoint Communications is on the Web at http://www.northpoint.net
Verizon can be found at http.www.verizon.com
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
16:22 CST Reposted 16:23 CST
Press Contacts: Marvin Wamble, Northpoint, 510-450-7432, e-mail:
[email protected] /WIRES ONLINE, LEGAL, TELECOM,
BUSINESS/NORTHPOINT/PHOTO
Folder Name: Telecom Services: Broadband Services
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 83
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,043 |
Subject: RE: Update on California PUC Hearing--DA Suspension Implementation;
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1586.
=====================================
Who was the ALJ on this matter--what is Bullet Bob Barnett?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:23 PM
To: Blachman, Jeremy; Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Kaufman, Paul; Leff, Dan; Hughes, Evan; Sharp, Vicki; Williams, Robert C.; Dietrich, Janet; Huddleson, Diann; Smith, Mike; Frazier, Lamar; Tribolet, Michael; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve
Subject: Update on California PUC Hearing--DA Suspension Implementation; Exit Fees; PX Credit, etc.--11.07.01
Please forward along to others I may have missed but need to know:
The Commission held a hearing this afternoon to discuss the need for hearings on issues surrounding the DA suspension.
With minor exceptions, the utilities told the Commission that the Commission didn't need to conduct hearings, and that the Commission could just go forward with implementing the suspension and assess exit fees.
The utilities said that hearings could be held "sometime later" to determine the exact level of exit fees and how the utilities ought to calcualte the PX credit going forward.
A large group of business customers and suppliers disagreed strongly and made a very good case for hearings.
There were lengthy arguments in front of the judge, at the end of which the judge decided that it would useful to hold another prehearing conference.
The next hearing will be on Dec. 12th.
The judge wanted another hearing to permit folks to have the opportunity to respond to the first round of comments on the issues submitted by everyone last Friday.
In sum, there will be another hearing on Dec. 12th to further discuss the need for hearings prior to the Commission making decisions on these issues.
At this point, it appears that the judge is leaning toward having comprehensive hearings.
Of particular note, at the end of the hearing the judge said that he is NOT inclinded to recommend a retroactive suspension of Direct Access to July 1, and that he didnt' think that the PUC commissioner assigned to the case was either. (Worried that he said too much, he then said he couldn't/shouldn't spead for the commissioner.)
The judge, and the Commissioner who was at the hearing, went on at length abouth the fact that no one submitted their DA contracts to the PUC (as requested in the document the PUC issued asking folks to submit comments on the issues).
Our attorney and the attorneys for suppliers and customers told them that 1) the Commission didn't need to see the actual contracts to get the information necessary via hearings to decide the issues and 2) the Commission doesn't have the authority to ask to see contracts and they ain't likely going to get them without a fight.
Though the probability many not be high, there is at least the chance that the Commission may try to subpoena folks to get the contracts. Seems prudent to at least be prepared for the possiblity.
Interestingly, Edison made a run at getting the Commission to implement by January 1 its proposal to charge all customers--DA and bundled alike--for Edison's undercollection.
The judge (literally) laughed off the request, and then said no.
As a result, Edison didn't get the leverage it was hoping for prior to our follow up meeting with them tomorrow to discuss the Negative CTC issue.
The judge also gave the DWR representative a pretty good thrashing, e.g., "why are you here, you refuse to be a party, you refuse to provide info," etc.
From today's hearing it appears that DWR will come under increasing pressure to open the kimono and have its numbers scrutinized.
In related news, Davis has announced that he's asked Sempra to meet to renegotiate their DWR contract and said that he'd thus far met with two other generators in "serious negotitations."
=====================================
|
4,044 |
Subject: Bond Leg Language, etc.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28363.
=====================================
Can I send this or the draft Sher bill to ARM members?
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/06/2001 10:51 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
07/05/2001 12:07 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], "John R. Redding (PS, NE)
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Mike Florio (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>
cc: (bcc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron)
Subject: Bond Leg Language, etc.
Greetings:
Hope everyone had a pleasant 4th.
I've read the respective Burton and Hertzberg language on amending AB 1X.
The Burton language looks cleaner and simpler, though there may be reasons to
include some of the Hertzberg language, too.
I'm proposing to the group the following as potential amendments to the bond
bill. I would appreciate your feedback. The amendments would be as follows:
Customers who were on Direct Access when DWR started buying power (Jan.
17th?), and are still on Direct Access when the bill passes, should be exempt
from paying for the bonds.
In short, customers should not be forced to pay for power twice--once from
their ESP, and once from DWR. Since these customers receive power services
from their ESP, they never consumed DWR power in the first place and it
wouldn't be fair to require them to pay for it.
Customers who have been utility customers since DWR started buying power but
subsequently switched to Direct Access should only pay for power provided by
DWR that they actually consumed, no more and no less.
For example, if a customer was a utility customer when DWR started buying
power but switched to Direct Access on May 1st, then the customer would only
be responsible for reimbursing DWR for power deliveries that took place from
Jan. 17th thru April 30th.
I believe that we agreed on these concepts during the negotiations that took
place over the past 4-5 weeks. Or if we didn't explicitly agree during the
talks, they seem to be principles on which we ought to be able to agree
pretty easily now. And rather than leave the issue hanging, which can create
unnecessary and costly uncertainty for customers, I suggest that we include
very clear and simple legislative language in the bond bill clarifying what
customers' obligations are. Your thoughts are appreciated.
In addition, we have talked quite a bit about providing customers with
incentives in the attempt to get California out of the energy hole that it
finds itself in. Providing (20KW and above) customers with an incentive to
switch to Direct Access as soon as possible could 1) reduce the net short
position that the state (and ultimately consumers) have to finance, thereby
reducing spot purchases and price volatility, 2) reduce electricity
purchasing costs, and 3) reduce the burden on the state budget.
With this in mind, I'm also proposing that the group consider an amendment to
the bond bill that would exempt from bond charges any customer that switches
to Direct Access by September 1st.
Finally, it seems odd that the language directing the PUC to suspend Direct
Access is still in the bill. If a dedicated rate component is created, that
seems to eliminate altogether the need to suspend Direct Access. And if
that's the case, would it make sense to delete that language from the bill?
Look forward to your comments and working with you to get support for and
passage of the "core/noncore" proposal.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,045 |
Subject: RE: Any Chance of Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__e_commerce/17.
=====================================
Jeff,
I was talking with my boss and the VP of BizDev at my company, and mentioned
Casbah and Perfect, briefly mentioning what they did. They seemed excited
by the idea and want to talk with the guys at Perfect. Of course, I did not
tell them any more than is already published on Casbah's website, and I made
it clear to them that I had signed an NDA. Do you think it would be OK if
my VP BizDev called the guys @ Perfect to discuss a potential alliance?
Also we need to let Perfect know that I'm working at Versata, and make sure
that there is no conflict of interest.
Let me know your thoughts ASAP.
Aiaz
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 4:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: Any Chance of Meeting
Ok, I just got a note from Mike who said he'd like to meet for lunch and
an afternoon meeting next week. Does that work for folks? Say, Friday?
Please advise.
Unfortunately, I was sort of hoping to meet on Sunday, but Saturday may
work.
Are you guys in class tonite? If so, let's talk then.
Aiaz Kazi <[email protected]> on 04/05/2000 09:03:52 AM
To: "'Jeff Dasovich'" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Aiaz Kazi <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Any Chance of Meeting
Lets get things started with a conference call to Cheryl. This will ensure
that we don't take up too much of Mike's time.
Also, what time are we planning to meet this weekend ? How about 11 am
Saturday? Alternatively, we could split it up with Kelly and I meeting in
Berkeley, and you guys hooking up in the city. I cannot do Sunday, so let
me know if Saturday works. Maybe we can do the call on Saturday, in which
case we have to be prepared with a set of questions.
Aiaz
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dasovich [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 3:43 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: Any Chance of Meeting
FYI. Should we try to do a call with Cheryl this week, or shoot for Mike
when
he gets back on the 10th? I've sneaking suspicion things will be more
productive with Mike. Whatever you folks would like to do's fine with me.
Best,
Jeff
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 04/04/2000
03:40 PM
---------------------------
Mike Davenport <[email protected]> on 04/03/2000 07:10:30 PM
To: "'[email protected] '" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Any Chance of Meeting
Jeff,
Sorry I missed you as well. Unfortunately, I am currently out of the
office...yet again...on a personal vacation....in Kauai..the islands send
their greetings. My business trip to Palm Springs was great, but I was only
in the office for a couple of days before my vacation started.
I'll be back in the office April 10. If you want to chat sooner than the
10th and check out our demo, you can give Cherryl Ricketts a call and she
should be able to help you out. I don't remember her direct number, so you
can call our general number 650-858-1000 and ask for her. Otherwise, I'll
be happy to chat as soon as I return to the office on the 10th.
Take care,
Mike D.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: 4/3/00 4:38 PM
Subject: Any Chance of Meeting
Greetings Mike: Hope your travels were good. Any chance of getting
together in person or by phone this week? Also, we were interested in
mucking around with the demo. I'm assuming we'd need to do that in your
offices, rather than remotely. Would it be possible to play around with
the demo? Hope all is well.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,046 |
Subject: Re: Teams
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1953.
=====================================
Hi Jeff,
I am easy, it just gets difficult to coordinate the more people you have,
it may be better of for her to find a smaller group, but if she has her
sights set on us, that's fine with me.
At 05:15 PM 9/28/00, [email protected] wrote:
>See my note and Christine's response. Thoughts? Suggestions? Jimmie,
>apparently she's had a crush on you ever since she heard you say,
>"Cash-sucking machine."
>----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 09/28/2000 07:11 PM -----
>
>
> Christine
> Piesco
>
> <christine.piesco@o To:
> [email protected]
> racle.com> cc:
>
> Subject: Re:
> Teams
> 09/28/2000 06:23
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>Sorry, I should have mentioned when we spoke that Prof Aceves already said
>it
>would be OK to join a group with 4, making it 5. He knew that would be the
>case. He suggested I pick a group, rather than him just randomly choosing
>one
>to assign me to. You seemed nice based on my initial reaction to meeting
>you,
>which is why I approached you about it.
>
>If the group has reservations based on my past group's experience, please
>let
>them know that the situation arose because I was out of the country for a
>week
>and a half without email access, and therefore wasn't able to contribute to
>two weeks of assignments. I had let Prof Aceves know about this planned
>business-related absence even before the course started, so he didn't
>penalize
>me. He forgot that I was the person who had sent him that note when my
>group
>approached him to let him know I hadn't contributed to two assignments. He
>said based on that, he would speak to the group to put me back in it if I
>wanted, or I could join another group. I hadn't had any conflicts
>whatsoever
>with the other group, I just had been out of communication, but I felt that
>given what had happened starting with a fresh group would be easier. In my
>opinion, it was just unfortunate that this trip happened two weeks into the
>class, before I could prove myself to my old group.
>
>If you can communicate both of these things to your other group members, I
>really would like to join you all. My alternative at this point would be to
>do
>the next assignment individually, since I wouldn't be able to find another
>group until two weeks from now, and then have the professor assign me to
>one.
>
>I greatly appreciate your help. If I can join you all, please let me know
>as
>soon as possible so I can make sure I contribute to the next assignment.
>
>Thanks,
>Christine
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
> > Christine:
> >
> > My apologies. My schedule melted down after we talked on Monday. Here's
> > where folks came out. There's some concern about size. We're supposed
>to
> > be no larger than 3, but we lobbied Aceves and he apparently Ok'd our
> > "oversized" group. The other folks in the group--who talked to him
> > originally--are pretty sure that five will violate the rules. Folks
> > wondered if there were other groups that are smaller than ours that you
> > could hook up with. Sorry about that---it's a wrinkle that I didn't
>think
> > about when we spoke. If it gets real ugly trying to find a smaller
>group,
> > let me know. Fortunately there's not another team case due for two
>weeks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
>
>--
>Christine Piesco
>Industrials Account Manager
>Oracle Corporation
>500 Oracle Parkway
>Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>Phone: (650) 506-3640
>Fax: (650) 633-3753
>[email protected]
>
>
>(See attached file: christine.piesco.vcf)
Kimberly Kupiecki
Senior Account Executive
A&R Partners
[email protected]
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801
=====================================
|
4,047 |
Subject: Re: Teams
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1991.
=====================================
OK gang, she's hell bent, and I've spent about as much time as I'm willing on
this. Sorry about the hassle---Jimmie, if you hadn't used that colorful
language, we wouldn't be in this mess. Anyway, unless I hear strong protests
in the next 30 minutes, I'm writing back to say she can join (and has to do
the next case all by her lonesome on the team's behalf as payback). Lemme
know.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 10/02/2000 04:21 PM -----
Christine Piesco <[email protected]>
10/02/2000 02:39 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Teams
Jeff,
I appreciate your help. I sent a note to the Prof last week letting him know
your
concerns and asking him to verify once more that a group size of 5 was OK. I
got
his response today that it was. Apparently, my old group was the only one
with 3,
most of the others have at least 4. If there really is a lot of resistance I
will
ask the Professor to assign me randomly to a group. I would simply prefer to
join
one that I chose. I appreciate you're group's helping me out of this awkward
spot,
if they decide to let me in. Let me know,
Thanks,
Christine
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi Christine:
>
> Yes, forwarded the email you sent last week. Here's where folks came out.
> First, we think that the folks in your first group are mean. Second, it's
> a real challenge managing a group of four and there's concern that five
> will break the camel's back. Suggestion came up that it might be much more
> mangageable if you could try to link up with a smaller group first. If
> there's a problem finding a smaller group, then we could try to do five and
> hope the ship don't sink?
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
> Christine Piesco
> <christine.piesco@o To:
[email protected]
> racle.com> cc:
> Subject: Re: Teams
> 10/02/2000 01:14 PM
>
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Have you had a chance to convey what I said to the group, and can I join?
> Professor Aceves was aware that I talked to you about joining your group,
> and
> he sent me an email asking to confirm that I was now in a group. I'd
> certainly
> like to be! As you know, I want to make sure I am in one to do the next
> assignment with. Please let me know, so that if I am joining your group I
> can
> make the meetings and contribute to the next case. I do really appreciate
> your
> help. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Christine
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Christine:
> >
> > My apologies. My schedule melted down after we talked on Monday. Here's
> > where folks came out. There's some concern about size. We're supposed
> to
> > be no larger than 3, but we lobbied Aceves and he apparently Ok'd our
> > "oversized" group. The other folks in the group--who talked to him
> > originally--are pretty sure that five will violate the rules. Folks
> > wondered if there were other groups that are smaller than ours that you
> > could hook up with. Sorry about that---it's a wrinkle that I didn't
> think
> > about when we spoke. If it gets real ugly trying to find a smaller
> group,
> > let me know. Fortunately there's not another team case due for two
> weeks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
>
> --
> Christine Piesco
> Industrials Account Manager
> Oracle Corporation
> 500 Oracle Parkway
> Redwood Shores, CA 94065
> Phone: (650) 506-3640
> Fax: (650) 633-3753
> [email protected]
>
> (See attached file: christine.piesco.vcf)
--
Christine Piesco
Industrials Account Manager
Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 506-3640
Fax: (650) 633-3753
[email protected]
- christine.piesco.vcf
=====================================
|
4,048 |
Subject: RE: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5423.
=====================================
I like your ideas - much better developed than in the draft memo.? I'm free
at 7pm.? My home number is 285-7385.? Just patch me in.
- cv
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA? 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:26 AM
To: Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark Guinney;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: HD Case: Proposed Plan
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
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.
=====================================
|
4,049 |
Subject: Re: New MSC Committee Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4322.
=====================================
Alan -
My read of the report is that the MSC wants a 2 year fixed price (establish=
ed=20
by some administrative procedure that works off of the natural gas index) f=
or=20
small commercial and residential retail customers and then they want to for=
ce=20
all suppliers (SCs) that participated in the Cal ISO market in 1999 to meet=
=20
this physical and financial obligation [isn't that a taking?]. =20
They only want the fixed price for 2 years because they want to capture the=
=20
downside opportunity in later years (real generous).
It seems that the same result could be had if the UDCs contracted forward f=
or=20
80% of their small commercial and residential with people like us (or DENA =
in=20
SDG&Es case). =20
I don't know if we need to respond directly. We may want to understand wha=
t=20
type of obligation this would put on EPMI and EES (how many Mwh) for 2 year=
s=20
and try and figure out what our mandatory sales price would be under their=
=20
model?
Give me a call.
Jim
=09Alan Comnes@ECT
=0912/04/2000 12:36 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Ti=
m=20
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 Subject: New MSC Committee Report
All:
I just downloaded the attached from the ISO's website. It is dated 12/1/00=
. =20
To boil it down, the MSC comes down against "soft" caps and recommends the=
=20
"get market-based rates in return for selling forward" proposal that the IS=
O=20
staff is pushing. Forward contracts would need to at rates that=20
"approximate" competitive prices. Based on my quick read that does not mea=
n=20
market prices; it means somthing more akin to cost of service. MSC also=20
wants there to be a penalty on generators for underscheduling. They also=
=20
claim there proposal will not exacerbate reliability problems.
I would be interested in people's opinion if Enron should be responding to=
=20
this report. Given the date of the report, I am not sure if/how the ISO=20
would file this at the FERC.
G. Alan Comnes (GAC)
Here's the list of recommendations from the report.
(1) The PX =01&must-buy=018 requirement would become a =01&must-schedule=01=
8 requirement.=20
IOUs
would be required to schedule all forward energy through the PX, but would =
be=20
free to
purchase it from any source.
(2) California generators and entities that sell to any California purchase=
r=20
(not limited to the
PX and ISO) could continue to be eligible for market-based rates (and would=
=20
be free of
refund obligations) only if they offer a substantial portion of their sales=
=20
in the form of
two-year contracts at rates that approximate competitive prices. The detail=
s=20
of such a
proposal are outlined in this report. The volume offered by sellers, in the=
=20
aggregate,
would be sufficient to cover the all three IOUs=01, residential and small=
=20
commercial
customer load using an average load profile for weekdays and weekends for=
=20
each month.
(3) Any market participant that does not offer these two-year=20
market-power-mitigation
forward contracts would be subject to cost-of-service rates for all of thei=
r=20
sales of energy
and ancillary services into the California market for at least the two-year=
=20
market power
mitigation period.
(4) The CPUC would be encouraged to set a default rate for IOU residential=
=20
and small
commercial customers based on projected wholesale energy costs under the=20
2-year
contracts described above.
(5) The under-scheduling penalty should be even-handed. The MSC recommends =
a=20
real-time
trading charge that is applicable both to load and generation and, more=20
important, does
not distinguish between instructed and uninstructed deviations from schedul=
e.
=====================================
|
4,050 |
Subject: NDA for Potential Opportunity with the California ISO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/546.
=====================================
Gil, could you please review the NDA for Jeff. Thanks
Robin L. Hill
Legal Specialist
Enron Broadband Services
(713)853-3255
(713)646-8537 fax
[email protected]
----- Forwarded by Robin Hill/Enron Communications on 05/08/00 09:34 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich@EES
05/05/00 02:06 PM
To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jean Mrha@ECT,
Robin Hill/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman@EES, Dave
Parquet@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
Subject: NDA for Potential Opportunity with the California ISO
All of the following should be considered confidential information. In
addition to the information, the ISO prefers to keep the simple fact that
they are meeting with us confidential.
As you recall, we met the CIO/EVP of the California ISO regarding the ISO's
excess broadband capacity. The ISO is very interested in determining if EBS
can devise a solution.
The ISO's outside counsel has reviewed the NDA we provided and made
comments. The redlined version is included below for review. Still
uncertain if there's a deal here. The idea is to get the NDA signed in order
to get considerably more info from the ISO and then determine whether there's
an opportunity. Please review the proposed changes and let me know if there
are any issues/problems. The ISO's big concern is ensuring that it doesn't
get crossways with MCI w.r.t. confidentiality, but they've told me they've
cleared that hurdle. Here is the note the ISO outside counsel used to
describe the changes:
Jeff:
Attached is a revised version of the proposed NDA, together with a redline
showing changes from the Enron version. The main reasons for changes were
to (1) limit data to the Enron telecom entity, and (2) assure compliance
with ISO's MCI agreement.
Let me know if there are any remaining issues.
Jim
I've also include some info that Dan Minter and I culled from the initial
meeting with the ISO.
The Network
MCI built the system.
The ISO currently shares its private, dedicated network 50-50 with the
California Power Exchange, though the ISO like to take control of 100% of the
asset.
The network consists of 4 OC-12s and as part of the contract, the ISO has a
call to upgrade at no or very little cost to 4 OC-48s.
This "scalability" was built in to accommodate what California believed would
be a very large and rapidly growing number of users (mostly scheduling
coordinators), but California greatly underestimated the number. So the ISO
is left with considerable excess capacity.
About 1/2 the capacity is currently used by the PX, but the ISO would like to
terminate that relationship as quickly as possible (if possible).
It's an ATM switched network with 11 A-PoPs and 4 B-Pops and it runs from
Folsom (Sacramento) to Alhambra (around Pasadena). The B-PoP locations are
Hayward, Sacramento, Long Beach, and Claremont.
The Contract
The ISO pays about $30-35 million/yr under the contract---significantly above
market.
The contract ends at the end of 2003.
The contract includes a costless, or very low cost, option to upgrade from
OC-12 to OC-48 (we'd need to find out "how costless," and how long it would
take to upgrade if the ISO exercised the option).
The contract also permits interconnection to the network (by MCI) for $485,
irrespective of difference from the grid. Access to the network is defined
as DS1.
The Goals of the ISO's EVP/CIO
Reduce costs immediately. Needs to take a plan designed to mitigate the
costs to the Board in 60 days.
Wants to maintain some flexibility in the event usage grows.
"Would like to do a short term deal, for "nonfirm" service and get a high
price," but would do a long-term, firm deal if it reduced his costs
significantly.
- Redline Enron -- CA ISO NDA.DOC
=====================================
|
4,051 |
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12237.
=====================================
Thanks, Mike.
I prefer the $15,000/clean slate option. For comments on the proposed
decision and lobbying on this specific case, I'm willing to go straight
hourly basis, but I will continue to request fixed prices going foward. And
worry not, it's not a Rick, Paul, Steffes issue. I'm the headache.
All this said, and budget haggling aside, I'm sure you're aware that it's my
view that 1) you do fantastic work and 2) it's great to work with you.
Best,
Jeff
MBD <[email protected]>
10/10/2000 12:14 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Jeff:
You are quite correct about the facts of the arrangement. However, between
the previous fixed price deal we did on the alternative settlement and this
most recent agreement, we have lost $10,000 plus $12,500 for a total of
$22,500 on this one case. In both situations, our hours were required by
the expanded press of the work in the hearing, and the uncertainty that is
involved in estimating the cost of hearing work is always difficult to deal
with. As you will no doubt recall, on our last arrangement, I provided an
estimate that was much closer to what we have acutally spent on the GRI
hearing and briefing to date, which you then proceeded to propose paring on
an essentially arbitrary basis. I unable to plead anything other than brain
disfunction as to why I agreed with your numbers, which I knew would be too
low. So here we are. In response to your proposal, I offer two
suggestions, one: we should split the difference between the estimate and
the actuals to date. That would mean you would pay $19,761 of the current
balance. On that basis, we would prepare written comments and lobby for the
proposed decision when it comes out at no additional cost. Two: you pay
only the $15,000 that you propose ($13,500 plus the extra $1500), but we
clean the slate and start over on the file and any written comments or
lobbying on the proposed decision are paid for on a straight hourly basis.
I think either solution is fair to both sides. We continue to absorb
losses, but get some additional compensation, you pay a bit more, but no
more than is fair, and there is still substantial commercial value in the
outcome of the case to warrant the regulatory expense. If you want me to
explain the situation to Paul or Rick or Steffes in order to assist in
justifying the additional expense, I would be more than happy to do so.
Thank you, and I mean this sincerely, for considering our request for a
revision of the billing arrangements. I am also willing to get together
today and talk about this face to face if you want. Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Mike:
We'd talked about getting together to discuss the bills for the case. We'd
originally agreed to a flat fee of $13, 500 (if memory serves) with a bonus
for coming in under the cap. You've sent me bills (as of August 17
according to my records) for over $25,000. As you recall, we had a very
lengthy discussion regarding the magnitude of the work associated with the
hearings and associated briefs. I stressed that $13.5 was what I'd spend
and that we'd have to do the best we could within that constraint, which is
why I pressed for a flat fee arrangement at the outset. With that in mind,
I believe that it's important to honor the arrangement. However, in light
of the particular circumstances in this case, I'm willing to exceed the
previous arrangement for a total of $15,000, but can't go above that. If
you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to talk about it. Let me
know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,052 |
Subject: Re: Strategy & Tactics on Continuing CPUC Activities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12084.
=====================================
Good plan.
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate
07/20/2001 02:33 PM
To: Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Linda J Noske/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: Strategy & Tactics on Continuing CPUC Activities
Harry, Jeff, & Sue --
I keep getting these notes from Jeanne on different matters.
1. Is there any way to get Jeanne to start using non-CPUC terms to define the
dockets (e.g., SCE PE Advice process)? I have a very difficult time trying
to figure out what material is being discussed.
2. I would like to have meeting to establish our priorities and leadership
roles for the CPUC going forward. Not sure how our decisionmaking is taking
place. I know that Harry has been taking a lot of the lead on these matters,
but want to make sure that from a personnel focus we are doing our best.
I'll ask Linda Noske to set up a call for this Thursday am.
Thanks,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:37 AM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail);
Neustaedter, Robert; Sue Mara (E-mail); Tamara Johnson (E-mail); Scott
Stoness (E-mail)
Subject: FW: To Service List A.00-10-045 SDG&E AL 1345-E
As part of its Memorandum of Understanding with DWR, SDG&E has filed the
attached advice letter. If approved, SDG&E would be authorized to transfer
a $104 million overcollection in its TCBA to its Energy Rate Ceiling Revenue
Shortfall Account (the account established to record the revenue shortfall
from the implementation of AB 265). The $104 million represents the
overcollection in utility retained generation revenues allocated to
customers which did not come under the AB 265 rate ceiling. That group would
include direct access customers. SDG&E's rationale for the transfer is that
it is the legislature's intent that 100% of SDG&E's retained generation be
used to serve its 100 kW and below customers (i.e., the AB 265 customers).
SDG&E had advanced this theory in its recent rate design case. It was
opposed by several groups and has not been ruled on by the Commission.
Protests on this advice filing are due August 6th. Please let me know if
Enron is interested in protesting.
Jeanne Bennett
-----Original Message-----
From: REGAFFRS [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Keith Melville;
Kimberly Freeman; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lynn Van
Wagenen; [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]; Thomas Brill;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: To Service List A.00-10-045 SDG&E AL 1345-E
Request to Transfer Approximately $104 Million From The Transition Cost
Balancing Account To The Energy rate Ceiling Revenue shortfall Account
- 1345-E.pdf
=====================================
|
4,053 |
Subject: Draft Decisions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/98.
=====================================
In addition to the draft decision on the suspension of direct access, the
Commission has been issuing a series of draft decisions this week pertaining
to the Department of Water Resources' power purchase activities. These
decisions will be voted on at next week's meeting. Additonal proposed
decisions will probably follow later this week.
OPINION ADOPTING RATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND DWR
The opinion essentially adopts the draft rate agreement which was put out
for comment approximately a month ago, with a few minor modifications.
While the Commission acknowledges the parties' due process concerns with
respect to ensuring that the costs included in DWR's revenue requirement are
just and reasonable (especially given the irrevocable nature of the rate
agreement), the Commission states that "adoption of the Rate Agreement, as
modified today, is vital to California ability to pay for the excessive
wholesale costs that were charged by power suppliers during the electricity
crisis."
The decision states that there is no need for the rate agreement to contain
provisions detailing the procedures that DWR must sue to conduct the Section
451 process required by Water Code Section 8110. The decision notes that
under the statue DWR has exclusive authority to conduct and to determine the
reasonableness of its revenue requirement pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Section 451 -- "because DWR is a state agency that must act in the public
interest, we assume that DWR will establish those procedures necessary to
ensure that its revenue requirement is just and reasonable." (of course DWR
did not do that this first time around)
The Decision states that whenever DWR submits a revenue requirement to the
Commission, the Commission will provide an opportunity for interested
parties to participate in its proceedings to set the rates to recover the
revenue requirement. (of course such proceedings will be expedited because
under the rate agreement they must go into effect within 90 days of
submittal of the revenue requirement). The decision provides that all
information that the Commission receives from DWR with respect to its
revenue requirement will be made available to the public.
OPINION ADOPTING RATE INCREASE TO IMPLEMENT DWR'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT
(SDG&E)
The decision adopts a system average rate increaseof 1.46 cents/kWh (12.1%)
for SDG&E customers. The increase will take effect on or after September
15th but no later than October 1st. The monies collected will be used
solely to fund the DWR power purchase costs. In reaching its decision to
raise SDG&E rates, the Commission determine that neither the rate cap on
SDG&E small customers (AB 265) nor the rate freeze on large customers (ABX1
43) affects the requirement to increase rates to implement DWR's revenue
requirement. The proposed decision references another decision (yet to be
released) pursuant to which DWR will receive from SDG&E the revenues that
SDG&E collections on its behalf based on the a fixed DWR charge of 9.02
cents/kWh. The decision also states that the ordered rate increase will
stay in effect until further Commission order. In this regard, the decision
references the Commission 's intent to implement a revised DWR revenue
reqruiment based on a DWR update to be submitted on February 1, 2002. At
that time, the Commission will consider changes to SDG&E's rates.
With respect to revenue allocation and rate design for the rate increase,
the PD pretty much follows the concepts set forth in D. 01-05-064 (the
SCE/PG&E rate design case). In this regard, the PD does not adopt SDG&E's
proposal that separate average rate increases be established for small and
large customers based on the assumption that the costs of utility retained
generation are assigned solely to small customers.
=====================================
|
4,054 |
Subject: Minutes from last Thurs' CAISO Board Meeting (Sorry for the delay)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1464.
=====================================
CAISO BOG 10/25/01
Notes taken by G. Alan Comnes
Meeting went from about 10:30 to 1 p.m.
Written materials discussed at this meeting are available at www.caiso.com/bog.
1. Budget. Board approved budget, which contains a significant increase in GMCs and, for the first time applies GMC fees, on the self provision of A/S. The motion to adopt was modified to say the Board would revisit budget if, in response to Gov. Davis requests to par budgets, the CAISO budget is cut.
2. Retirement plan Audit
3. Allocation of Above-MCP 487 charges. This mechanism will improve the allocation of OOM costs so that the per-MWh charges match up with actual OOM costs. Stated that penalty revenues used to lower OOM costs could come from imbalance penalties. Action. approved (?) to allow staff to make a tariff amendment on this change.
4. Winter Assessment. Presentation by staff Kahn took issue (i.e., did not even want staff report presented) that CAISO does an assessment without consulting the Power Authority, CPUC, and the CEC. Worried about conflicting with the other resource assessments out there and giving media ways to take shots at DWR buying practices. In the end, the full presentation was not given but questions were asked about whether the assessment spells trouble or provides assurance. The answer: things are tight in some months but are expected to be ok given the level of conservative assumptions used in the analysis. Action: staff was tasked to compare this assessment with CEC's and others and come back in another month.
5. Generator maintenance program. Will use GADS data. This program is mandatory for PGA generator units. CAISO staffer represented that no other ISO has a prescriptive program like the one CAISO is proposing. Current schedule: brief FERC staff next week, return to Board in November for approval, make FERC filing, implement in early '02. Benchmarks are based on each unit's historical performance; i.e. dogs will be benchmarked against their past doggy behavior. There is no component to raise the "bar" on performance but a unit that falls relative to past performance would trigger further review.
6. MSC Selection Committee. MSC provides "independent" review of the CAISO markets for CAISO, the state, and FERC. Wolak is the only member left at the moment. Selection committee will be Sheffrin, Wolak, and Borenstein. Candidates will go to Exec. Director and the final candidates to the Board in February 2002 (!). Kahn questioned how the MSC can survive with only one member and take until February 02 to select a final members. Nonetheless, the glacially paced schedule was adopted.
7. FERC RTO Seams Issues. Steve Greenleaf presented. Updated BOG on RTO week and said that the "4 RTO" model took a step backward ("off the table" in the words of Chair Wood) in response to criticism from state PUCs on Thursday. (Is this an accurate recounting of Day 4?). ISO is engaged in interregional coordination. Mentioned "CSIC" group Mentions SSGWY's (?)sponsorship of a market monitoring workshop on November 16.
8. Update of CERS Settlement BEEP/AS Payment Procedure. Edison and PG&E "are making progress" but no agreement with CERS have been reached. SDG&E signed and the procedure was implemented at least in part with SDG&E.
9. Monthly reports: financial.
10. Monthly reports: DMA. Sheffrin. Mostly followed the briefing charts. Emphasized the following: CERS OOM purchases are generally down and are reasonably priced once purchases and sales are disaggregated. Said that suppliers are still bidding above costs. DMA files confidential reports that include info on bidding data weekly to FERC. Bids are not coming down. Intrazonal congestion is up due to new generation coming on line. That allows generators to play the "dec" game.
=====================================
|
4,055 |
Subject: WTO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/227.
=====================================
The discussion of free trade I circulated was short of discussion of some
hot topics these days. Here is a continuation on environmental and labor
rights.
Environmental issues
Pat: The US had laws only permitting imported products if caught in ways
friendly to sea turtles and dolphins. The WTO principle of regulating
products but not production processes ruled these laws out of bounds.
Chris: Some countries compete for companies to locate production facilities
by having lower environmental standards. Thus, free trade puts poor
nations in competition with each other, halting them from regulating
environmental standards. Instead, we see a "race to the bottom" where
environmental regulations are lax.
Pat: But a poor nation should be able to choose its own level of
regulations. If lower regulations produces more jobs, why shouldn't a poor
nation be free to pick laxer regulation and less starvation?
Chris: Well, I am unsure of your definition of "nation." In many poor
nations, the people who suffer from pollution are not informed of the
hazards and are not very politically powerful. Instead, they are just poor
people who live downstream from a horrific factory or mine.
Pat: I acknowledge some regimes are undemocratic. I just am unsure if
restricting trade with them will help the poor people you and I both care
about.
Chris: Speaking of undemocratic, the same "race to the bottom" shows up in
labor rights. Nations with effective laws restricting child labor are at a
disadvantage to competitors where such laws are not enforced. Similarly,
nations win the game of attracting foreign investors if they shoot union
leaders and otherwise restrict employees' rights. Moreover, slave labor
remains present in some nations with various forms of indentured servitude.
The WTO makes it illegal to sanction nations based on these horrific
practices.
Pat: Like you I oppose 10 years old in dangerous factories, slavery, and
shooting or imprisoning union leaders. I just do not think trade barriers
are a very effective solution to most of these problems. Children do not
work because their parents are mean, but because they are poor.
Restricting their work makes no sense and does not help them. If rich
nations want children in poor nations to go to school, we should be
subsidizing meals and tuition for schools in poor parts of the world, not
restricting poor families' already limited options.
Chris: So would you permit ANY deviations from widely agreed-on labor
standards. According to your logic we should have have permitted trade
with Nazi Germany, just as you would encourage trade with China in spite of
its horrific human rights abuses.
Pat: We again agree on the horror of China and other nations' abuse of
human rights. At the same time, WTO membership and a rising standard of
living seem the most likely ways to help democratic reformers in China. I
remain unsure why we should undertake actions that hurt this opening
process, even if it assuages our conscience.
LINKS:
Here is a short video clip of Laura Tyson and others discussing the WTO
http://www.cnn.com/video/world/1999/11/30/rd.wto.101.reut.rm28.html
For more critiques, read the speech by the head of the AFL-CIO at
http://www.aflcio.org/publ/speech99/sp1119.htm
As you'd expect, a more favorable view is from the National Assoc. of
Manfuacturers,
http://www.nam.org/Revolve/WTO.html
"Clearing the Air: The WTO and America's Health, Safety and Environment"
yahoo has a nice listing: http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/fc/Business/Trade/
David I. Levine Associate professor
Haas School of Business ph: 510/642-1697
University of California fax: 510/643-1420
Berkeley CA 94720-1900 email:
[email protected]
http://web.haas.berkeley.edu/www/levine/
=====================================
|
4,056 |
Subject: RE: Budget Spreadsheet
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/420.
=====================================
He's my best friend. VERY bright guy. He's my best friend. VERY bright g=
uy. He's my best friend. VERY bright guy. He's my best friend. VERY bri=
ght guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY br=
ight guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY b=
right guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY =
bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY=
bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VER=
Y bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VE=
RY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. V=
ERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. =
VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. =
VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend.=
VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend=
. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best frien=
d. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best frie=
nd. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best fri=
end. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best fr=
iend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best f=
riend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best =
friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best=
friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my bes=
t friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my be=
st friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my b=
est friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my =
best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my=
best friend. VERY bright guy.He's my best friend. VERY bright guy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kaufman, Paul=20
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:22 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Budget Spreadsheet
Don't yank my chain.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff=20
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:05 AM
To: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: Budget Spreadsheet
That's helpful. Thanks. Needed a time frame. Today's going to be very in=
teresting. Should be able to get you something before 10; before noon, max.
=20
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----=20
From: Kaufman, Paul=20
Sent: Mon 10/1/2001 7:50 PM=20
To: Dasovich, Jeff=20
Cc:=20
Subject: RE: Budget Spreadsheet
I need to have the document into Rick by COB on Wednesday (i.e., 4:00 our t=
ime). Don't yank my chain. =20
-----Original Message-----=20
From: Dasovich, Jeff =20
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:48 PM=20
To: Kaufman, Paul=20
Subject: RE: Budget Spreadsheet=20
What time on Wednesday?=20
-----Original Message-----=20
From: Kaufman, Paul =20
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:44 PM=20
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Comnes, Alan; Mara, Susan=20
Subject: Budget Spreadsheet=20
Attached is the strawman. Note that the Sheet 2--drops participation to ba=
re essentials. Sheet 3 assumes a 40% budget cut from Sheet 1. The delete=
d actions are different in Sheet 2 and Sheet 3. =20
Jeff: Please review ASAP, add the gas matters to Sheet 1, delete gas matte=
rs that are not essential in Sheet 2, and take a 40% haircut in Sheet 3. A=
lso add back any other matters that I have deleted that you disagree with, =
but make sure that Sheet 3 continues to meet the 40% haircut target. Then =
send to Sue Mara for review. =20
Sue: Please review ASAP after Jeff. I need to get this into Rick by Wedne=
sday. =20
Alan: Please take a look and pass any comments along to me.
=====================================
|
4,057 |
Subject: Re: b-day
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1656.
=====================================
Nothing was fidgety, at all. I'm glad that you spoke your mind, because I
have been offended by those types of statements from Cameron many times. I
have tried to say something, only to be pushed aside by her adept
pettifoggery -- that you chimed in gave it weight. (She was also in the mood
for a little bout.) With that said, I've discovered that if I'm patient with
her, she will eventually listen to me, and the points I make about the holes
in her logic. She has a handbag of half-formed views which I am trying to
dispel. It has taken a while, but we're getting there. Hence, her saying at
the end of the conversation that she's against fundamentalism, rather than
religious people in general. She needs to take more of those strides.
You may certainly hold anarchist views (I respect that), but that night I
think you were simply expressing an abhorrence of gross generalization. I'm
glad we see eye to eye on that. Live and let live and all that. But once
Cameron says something like that, she feels she must stick by it. The
devil's advocate line is so boring: one must speak one's mind, not
contradict for contradiction's sake. (Do devil's advocates have nothing
themselves to believe in, so they simply take the opposing view for
something to hold onto?) Cameron has a bit too much of the devil's advocate
in her. I hope I can cast some spells to purge that ornery Lucifer from her.
I think I'll be less sucessful there. After all, she is a lawyer at heart.
Maybe next time we see each other you can explain to me exactly what a
social liberterian is. I really don't have a clear concept in my head there.
Hope you're having a nice day.
>From: [email protected]
>To: "Scott Laughlin" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: b-day
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:47:07 -0600
>
>
>As uncomfortable as it sometimes is, I feel compelled to comment on what in
>my humble opinion are quite troubling statements, particularly when those
>statements come from the mouths of self-described liberal, open minded,
>diversity-loving hipsters. I have a very hard time with stereotyping of
>any sort, and a very, very hard time when it comes from people I'm close
>to. Believe it or not, in the past, I would have been much more aggressive
>about it. Guess I've mellowed. Sorry if it made things, well, fidgety.
>(I've come to grips with the fact that deep down, I tend to trend toward
>socially libertarian and sometimes even anarchist views---oh well.)
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>
>
> "Scott
> Laughlin" To: [email protected]
> <scottwl@hotm cc:
> ail.com> Subject: b-day
>
> 11/13/2000
> 04:57 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>Dude,
>
>Thanks for the abalone last night. Too bad we had to wash it down with that
>
>discussion. Actually, wasn't so bad, really -- just a bit frusterating.
>Anyway, let me know what I can do for Prentice's birthday. Do you want me
>to
>go out there and check it out? Let me know about deposits and stuff like
>that as well.
>
>I'm sitting here in the new place in the 'Loin listening to that great
>Mingus disk you got me. It's really amazing, a perfect compliment to
>sorting
>out and organizing all my papers.
>
>Hope you're having a good day.
>
>Scott
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
=====================================
|
4,058 |
Subject: Enron, Connecticut and FuelCell Energy seeking
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13069.
=====================================
PROJECTS
CONN. FUEL CELL PROJECT MAY FALTER ON DETAILS OF STATE FUNDING RULES
May. 24, 2001
Utility Environment Report
Page 11
(Copyright 2001 McGraw-Hill, Inc.)
Enron Corp., FuelCell Energy and a state agency are seeking to convince
Connecticut regulators to devote about $124-million over five years to a
26-MW fuel cell project. But some observers doubt the project will win
approval because the proposal does not meet state funding requirements and
was not filed properly. Under a proposal to the Connecticut Dept. of Public
Utility Control, the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, a quasi-public
waste agency, would tap the state's conservation fund, set up under electric
restructuring, to buy 12 fuel cell units from Enron North America, which
distributes FuelCell Energy's equipment. CRRA would schedule the output from
the fuel cell farms into the NEPOOL power grid and make the power available
to market participants. If funding is granted, the project could be finished
by the end of 2004, the proposal states.
``This multi-year market transformation initiative will provide a Class I
renewable energy source which will assist electric suppliers in meeting the
Connecticut renewable energy portfolio standard, promote economic development
within the State, provide energy in an environmentally responsible manner,
diversify the State's energy supply mix, and promote the development of a
truly competitive retail electricity market,'' the CRRA proposal states.
Under Connecticut's restructuring rules, starting July 2002, 1% of
Connecticut's load or 58 MW must be supplied by Class I renewables, which
include solar power, wind power, fuel cells, landfill methane gas and biomass
facilities. By 2009, 6% of the state's load or 348 MW must be made of Class I
renewables. The requirements, however, have been deferred because there is
not currently enough Class I capacity in the state to meet the requirements.
The Enron project faces perhaps insurmountable hurdles, said Daniel Sosland,
executive director of Environment Northeast and a member of the Energy
Conservation Management Board, which oversees the conservation fund. The
$85-million conservation fund is intended for consumer-side efficiency
efforts, not to buy generation, Sosland said. The proposal faces significant
legal hurdles, he said.
The ECMB asked the DPUC in a March 27 letter to direct entities, like the
CRRA, who didn't submit funding proposals to the board to do so before filing
them with the department. It also asked the DPUC to clarify that the fund's
purpose is to improve energy efficiency and electric use at the customers'
premises and to clarify that proposals are screened for cost effectiveness.
Current installed costs of fuel cells range between $5,000 and $6,000 per kW,
according to the CRRA proposal. Fuel cell manufacturers have not been able to
achieve economic commercialization due to the high capital expenditures
required to build up their manufacturing processes, according to the
proposal. ``This 26 MW order sufficiently supports the manufacturing
investment required to automate and develop economies of scale associated
with volume manufacturing and to begin the commercialization of fuel cells as
a viable and economical power supply,'' the CRRA proposal states. ``The
average installed cost for all 12 units in this 26-MW installation is
approximately $4,150 per kilowatt.'' Connecticut's $15-million Clean Energy
Fund, which invests in renewable technologies, previously turned down the
proposed project, Sosland said.
The CRRA will present its proposal to the DPUC during hearings on funding for
conservation programs. The DPUC is set to make a final decision on the
``Conservation and Load Management Programs and Budget for 2001'' by June 6.
=====================================
|
4,059 |
Subject: NEWS: blackout program in SDG&E
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12095.
=====================================
* from Friday's LA Times
Business; Financial Desk
SDG&E Blackout Plan Would Pay Firms to Use Generators Utilities: Program in
which large customers produce their own power is forecast to cut demand by as
much as 50 megawatts, save $1.6 billion.
NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
TIMES STAFF WRITER
05/04/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
C-1
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
San Diego Gas & Electric unveiled a novel plan Thursday to pay customers to
fire up their backup generators when blackouts threaten.
The utility said the program could cut demand on the power grid by 50
megawatts--enough to serve about 37,500 homes--allowing it to avoid or
minimize blackouts this summer in San Diego and southern Orange County.
"California needs an infusion of new power supplies, but in the interim, we
hope this unique program will help shield San Diego from some of the
devastating effects of rolling blackouts this summer, including the increased
risks to public safety and health," SDG&E President Debra L. Reed said.
The Rolling Blackout Reduction Program, as the Sempra Energy subsidiary has
dubbed it, would cost $15 million to implement but could save the region as
much as $1.6 billion in lost revenue, reduced productivity and property
damage, the utility has estimated.
Energy experts are forecasting a dark summer for California, with blackout
totals ranging between 20 hours and 1,100 hours. The California Independent
System Operator, which runs the electricity transmission grid for most of the
state, has said residents face 34 days of rotating outages if they use the
same amount of electricity this summer as they did last summer.
The state and utilities have been working feverishly to develop programs that
will reduce electricity use this summer.
SDG&E, Edison International's Southern California Edison and PG&E Corp.'s
Pacific Gas & Electric have programs that grant large customers lower
electricity rates in exchange for cutting electricity use when Cal-ISO
declares a Stage 2 emergency as power reserves dip below 5%. But
participation in those programs has dropped sharply because of repeated power
interruptions.
SDG&E's "interruptible" program represents 49 megawatts of demand, half of
what it was in October, spokesman Ed Van Herik said.
The new SDG&E program, which must be approved by the California Public
Utilities Commission, would kick in whenever Cal-ISO declares a Stage 3
emergency, indicating that power reserves are down to 1.5% of demand and that
rolling blackouts are imminent.
SDG&E hopes to sign up 50 megawatts of backup generation, representing about
40 large commercial and industrial customers, but believes customers capable
of generating a total of 200 megawatts may be eligible for the program, Van
Herik said.
"We found a lot of customers are interested in this program," he said. "This
is an opportunity for San Diego to become involved."
During a Stage 3 order, program participants would be asked to start their
backup generators and then reduce the electricity they receive from SDG&E by
the same amount.
Participants would be paid a monthly fee of $7 per kilowatt of generation
capacity. On top of that, they would receive 35 cents for every kilowatt-hour
of power they generate for their own use. That price is about what power
plant owners have been commanding in California's pricey electricity market.
"We think the fees we are proposing are fair," Van Herik said. "These aren't
people who are in the generation business, and undoubtedly there will be wear
and tear on equipment and increased personnel and fuel costs."
The program, which SDG&E wants to implement by June 1, would operate in
compliance with air pollution regulations, the utility said.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,060 |
Subject: Market Intelligence - USI Corporation - Help
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/908.
=====================================
Thanks to all of you who responded. I will briefly describe what we think
the play is based on the input provided.
Bob Hanson, Jennifer Rudolph and Roger Yang "scored" with providing the
information below.
Most likely the consultant will suggest converting accounts on AL-TOU,
AY-TOU, and AO-TOU to one of the following rate schedules: AV-1 AV-2, and
AV-3. These are general service variable TOU rate schedules. The purpose of
these rate schedules was to send the customer price signals to curtail during
times when the transmission system was constrained. Like many of UDC
experimental programs, customers often did better on this rate schedule,
compared to their otherwise applicable rate schedule, even if they did not
follow the price signals.
That loop hole is being closed by SDG&E. They have a draft decision from the
CPUC changing the distribution rate components associated with these rate
schedules, thus closing the loop hole. Based on these changes, customers
should pay significantly more than their otherwise applicable rate schedule,
unless they follow the price signals. If the customery follows the price
signals this program is like a curtailable program or RTP program. The
customer would have to shut down load or use DG during high priced hours.
I expect we have not heard the last from these individuals.
Just for the record this is what we think the play is. The consultant will
not share their strategy with the customer until after a contract is signed.
Normally the up-front consultant fee is between $8K - $15K and then a 50/50
sharing of the savings over 3 years.
SDG&E also charges a setup fee, which includes special equipment, of $4500 to
be on these AV rate schedules per account.
George Waidelich
NES- WEST
925-543-3801
---------------------- Forwarded by George Waidelich/SFO/EES on 10/10/2000
10:13 AM ---------------------------
George Waidelich
10/06/2000 05:10 PM
To: Douglas Condon/SFO/EES@EES, Greg Cordell/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Ress Young/HOU/EES@EES, Brian Dafferner/HOU/EES@EES,
Ken Detina/HOU/EES@EES, Edward Hamb/HOU/EES@EES, Chris Hendrix/HOU/EES@EES,
Ronald G Mentan/SFO/EES@EES, Gary Mirich/HOU/EES@EES, Jennifer
Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, John Woodman/SFO/EES@EES, Frank Wanderski/HOU/EES@EES,
Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Martin Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES, Walton Agnew/HOU/EES@EES, Dirk
vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
Subject: Market Intelligence - USI Corporation - Help
I am trying to find out if anybody knows anything about USI Corporation.
They are a rate hawk out of San Juan Capistrano, CA. (So Cal).
They have approached Albertsons, who we are currently working with, about
entering into an agreement with them. They are promising a 15 - 20% savings
($4-5MM) for their stores in SDG&E territory, just by putting them on another
applicable utility rate that nobody is aware of "loop hole". Of course,
they will not share this information until Albertsons has signed a contract.
The contacts we have been negotiating with have told them to get lost but USI
went over their heads to senior management who is now asking for an
explanation.
From a commodity origination and account management perspective a rate hawk,
if hired, is just going to cause problems.
Any information that anybody can provide on:
1. The Company
2. There pitch in CA
3. More specifically, their possible "loop hole or play" in SDG&E territory,
would me much appreciated.
Please forward this message to anybody that might be able to help.
Is there an SDG&E interuptible tariff or a new ISO interuptible tariff that
can generate this kind of savings?
Thanks,
George Waidelich
NES - West
925-543-3801
=====================================
|
4,061 |
Subject: Re: California LNG
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12857.
=====================================
So far there's Wild Goose, but there in Northern California--have to go
through the Wheeler bottleneck--so that likely won't hunt. Lodi's a
possibility, but it's well inland, unlike the significantly more strategic
storage assets on the coast. In addition, Lodi's in the process of selling,
so there's some uncertainty in the short run. Bottom line, folks are trying
to build competitive storage, but it's in the "emerging" phase in a very
hostile environment. We should discuss further, though; very interesting
idea.
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes
05/22/2001 08:45 AM
To: Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: California LNG
Robert & Jeff --
Is there some other (competitive) storage that would want to work with our
deal in CA other than SocalGas? Maybe find someone adding some new storage.
Jim
Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
05/16/2001 10:20 AM
To: Kurt Lindahl/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jody
Crook/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: California LNG
In response to your request to review the SoCalGas tariff with respect to
storage service for quantities of gasified LNG in excess of market I present
the following.
SoCalGas has various storage rate schedules available to its customers,
including forms of interruptible storage service.
Because of the long-term nature of the proposed project and firm injection
requirements I focused on Schedule No. G-LTS (firm Long-Term Storage Service).
Pricing under this schedule is very flexible (both upwards and downwards). I
have used the rates included in the tariff which are suppossed to closely
correspond to utilty cost of providing such service and are also consistent
with rates previously supplied for economic modeling purposes. Keep in mind,
these are benchmark costs, and may be subject to downward or upward
negotiation.
Because of the magnitude of the injection quantities, it was advised that
some expansion of storage capabilities may be required.
Fixed charges consist of an annual inventory capacity charge, and annual
withdrawal capacity charge and a monthly firm injection charge. The monthly
firm injection charge is the largest cost component. Based on conversations
with SoCalGas, firm injection rights (similar to pipeline capacity) would be
sold on a monthly basis. Consequently, in order to have firm rights to
injection capacity, it would have to be reserved 365 days out of a year.
During the off-peak season, "as-available" injection rights may be used that
could substantially lower the cost, but given the inflexibility of unloading
of the LNG ships, this was not considered.
Variable costs would consist of injection and withdrawal charges in the
applicable periods (peak and off-peak) for injection and withdrawal
quantities.
A fuel retention factor of 2.44% would be applied to injections during the
peak period.
While not necessarily affecting the overall costs, a transmission charge on
injections and withdrawals would also be assessed. A transmission charge on
injections would appear as a debit on the invoice, and an equal transmission
charge on withdrawals would appear as a credit, effectively resulting in a
wash. However, for cash flow purposes it should be considered. The
transmission charge is approximately 57 cents per dekatherm.
Transportation from storage would require a separate contract.
A spreadsheet is attached that quantifies the storage cost on an annual basis
utilizing the injection/ withdrawal and inventory assumptions provided.
Again, please keep in mind that the actual costs are negotiable.
I hope this helps in your analysis, and please feel free to call and discuss
further.
Robert
=====================================
|
4,062 |
Subject: Special Offer for VentureWire Subscribers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27816.
=====================================
Dear Jeffrey:
I'd like to tell you about another opportunity to
understand the people and companies driving the
private equity markets, let you know that you can
save $100 by registering for Financial Services
Outlook now, and offer you an exclusive chance to
win a free registration to a future conference from
Technologic Partners.
Our database shows that investment in financial
services technology companies is very strong, with
over $750 million in private equity invested in the
sector this year.
Many of those venture-backed companies, as well as
other strong investment candidates, will be presenting
at Financial Services Outlook in New York on July 31
at the Marriott World Trade Center. Read on to find
out how to be entered in a special contest for
VentureWire subscribers.
The e-finance landscape is rapidly redefining itself,
and the editors at Technologic Partners have put
together a comprehensive agenda and compelling set
of private companies. Understand the growing oppor-
tunities for companies in the following illustrative
sectors:
* Online Banking and Trading
* Payment and Presentment
* Investment Services
* Financial Services Globalization
In one day, Financial Services Outlook will deliver:
* Private Equity Platform -- Speak with some 50 CEOs
of the most promising start ups as they present their
business plans to investors
* Keynote Presentations -- Listen to executives such
as Robert L. Reynolds, vice chairman and COO of
Fidelity Investments and Pete Sinisgalli, president
and COO of CheckFree as they detail their views of
the technological revolution in financial services
* Product Demonstration Reception -- Network with
fellow attendees at an end-of-conference reception
where up to 25 companies will demonstrate firsthand
their services and products
You may check out the latest conference agenda at:
http://www.financialservicesoutlook.com/vw.asp
So Jeffrey, are you ready to sign up for Financial
Services Outlook on July 31 in New York? If so,
register online at:
http://www.financialservicesoutlook.com/vw.asp.
Pay only $895, a savings of $100, if you register
by June 19.
And, for all those VentureWire subscribers who enter
the code "FSOVW" in the last box of the registration
page, we've arranged an exclusive drawing for a free
registration to a future Outlook conference. The
deadline for entering this contest is June 19, the
same day as early registration deadline. This is your
chance to win an up to $2195 value (based on the cost
of a 2 day conference) for free when you register early
for Financial Services Outlook. Good luck, and I hope
to see you in New York on July 31!
Thank you,
Brian O'Connell,
Publisher
VentureWire
[email protected]
http://www.financialservicesoutlook.com/vw.asp
If you'd prefer not to receive such messages from us,
follow this link:
http://www.venturewire.com/[email protected]
and we'll make sure you don't in the future.
Note: This special offer is valid only for original
recipients of this e-mail and is non transferable. If
you have already registered for Financial Services
Outlook prior to receiving this offer, you are not
eligible for the contest. Registration and payment
must be received by June 19, 2001 by 11:59p.m. EST
to be entered in the contest. Contest prize (free
registration) is only valid for an Outlook conference
scheduled to take place between 8/1/01 and 12/ 31/01.
Free registration is non transferable.
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
-------------------------------------
Your registration to VentureWire included granting
us permission to send you information about new
features and other products from Technologic Partners.
We are committed to protecting your privacy.
VentureWire, Financial Services Outlook, and Outlook
are trademarks and service marks of Technologic
Partners L.P.
=====================================
|
4,063 |
Subject: Re: Rick's Panel on Wholesale/Retail Market Power Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/253.
=====================================
Jeff,
Thanks again for your help. I appreciate it.
Regards,
Lara
Jeff Dasovich
09/06/2000 03:02 PM
To: Lara Leibman/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Rick's Panel on Wholesale/Retail Market Power Issues
Lara: I have rather hastily put this list together. For that I apologize.
Hope it is helpful. The things on the list are ones that you've likely
already considered. Nevertheless, some of the issues we face in California
include:
1. POWER PLANTS
The utilities' subs are building power plants; competitors (like Enron) are
also trying to develop plants to sell power into both wholesale and retail
markets.
The utilities control the interconnection of plants to the grid.
The interconnection rules are currently so vague and ambiguous, that the
utility could quite easily favor its generation sub over competitors.
This would have an effect on prices at both the wholesale and retail level
(i.e., how do we know we've gotten the best generation deal if the utility
can favor its subs plants via interconnection?).
2. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
And the same goes for DG: in California many are pointing to DG as a viable
solution to the price spikes.
If the utility loses sales because a customer has installed DG on her
premises as a hedge against price spikes, the utility will have an incentive
to thwart interconnection of the DG unit. (Recall that in many places,
recovery of distribution costs is derived from kwh sales; and if sales go
down, so can recovery of the utilities' distribution-related costs).
In addition, if someone attempts to install DG at the grid level (as opposed
to on-site DG) and sell the DG power in wholesale and retail markets, the
utility has the ability to frustrate the DG project via interconnection.
This permits the utility to retain bundled service customers. Utility
control of DG Interconnection can also permit the utility to favor its DG
subs.
3. INTERCONNECTION/VOLTAGE BUY-UP
And the same goes for the retail level---remember how SDG&E used
interconnection to thwart our deal with South West Marine in San Diego.
(Obviously, we're not doing these deals any more, but the interconnection
caused us ultimately to lose the commodity deal, too.)
4. TRADING
PG&E and Sempra have developed significant trading units.
Now that the utilities have been granted authority to buy outside the PX, the
trading subs are getting more aggressive and vocal about the opportunity to
sell the utility power via short and long term power contracts.
Again, any sort of favoritism could do considerable harm to consumers and
competition (through the shareholders of the utilities' parent would surely
profit).
5. DISTRIBUTION
In general, the utilities control over distribution is complete and it's a
problem (see DG, above, for example).
Shouldn't state and federal policy makers at least consider doing the
equivalent of FERC Order 888 (i.e., open access) at the distribution level?
Right now, distribution is a real black box.
6. RETAIL
In California, the utility effectively controls customer sign-up, switching,
information, and turn back. The problems have been significant.
7. MARKET INSTITUTIONS
Finally, a big mistake in California was to replace one monopoly--the
utility--with another--the PX.
Because the utility has been forced to buy from the PX, and because the
market structure in California gives customers no incentive to switch, the
utility continues to control the overwhelming majority of the load in
California.
This gives the utilities monopsony power. With that power, they can
influence PX prices.
Solution: 1) Don't make the PX a monopoly. 2) Create a system that provides
customers with the incentive to switch.
If you have any questions, or if there's anything else I can do to help,
don't hesitate.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,064 |
Subject: FW: Consolidation of Three Utility Applications in 3rd Annual Tra
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2987.
=====================================
Jeanne hasn't been aware of SDG&E's proposal to use overcollections from
on-going CTCs to offset undercollections. We would probably want to
protest that issue.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron on 11/02/2000
07:11 PM ---------------------------
JMB <[email protected]> on 11/01/2000 04:55:14 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FW: Consolidation of Three Utility Applications in 3rd Annual Tra
nsit ion Cost Proceeding ("ATCP")
Mona -- I know you are going to talk to the ARM members about SDG&E's ATCP,
so I thought you would be interested in this. If Steve's proposal works,
then ARM could get involved solely in the reasonableness part of SDG&E's
procurement practices, and not have to bother with the rest of their
applications or the other two UDCs' ATCPs.
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, Steven C. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:11 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Lisa Hubbard; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark
Ward; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Steven Nelson; [email protected]; Thomas Whelan
Subject: Consolidation of Three Utility Applications in 3rd Annual Transit
ion Cost Proceeding ("ATCP")
I'm sending this note on behalf of SDG&E to inquire whether any
parties have any objections to the consolidation of the Transition Cost
Balancing Account ("TCBA") reasonableness portion of SDG&E's 3rd Annual
Transition Cost Proceeding ("ATCP") application with Edison's and PG&E's
3rd
ATCP applications (A.00-09-014 and A.00-09-001) presided over by ALJ
Patrick.
By way of background, some of you may know that SDG&E filed its 3rd
ATCP application one month later this year than Edison and PG&E (10/2/2000
instead of 9/1/2000) because the Commission directed SDG&E to include
testimony on the reasonableness of its energy procurement practices in its
application in addition to testimony on TCBA reasonableness issues (that
have been the subject of the "traditional" ATCP for the last couple of
years).
In ORA's protests to Edison's and PG&E's 3rd ATCP applications, ORA
requested that the Commission consolidate the three utilities' ATCP
applications because "the policy questions raised by these applications are
substantially similar for all three utilities [and] [t]he Commission can
avoid much duplication of effort if the three applications are
consolidated." SDG&E agrees with ORA's assessment. Thus, at a prehearing
conference scheduled Monday, November 6 at 2PM and presided over by ALJ
Barnett, we are going to propose to ALJ Barnett that he (1) bifurcate
SDG&E's energy procurement reasonableness case from SDG&E's TCBA
reasonableness case and (2) transfer SDG&E's TCBA reasonableness case to
the
TCBA reasonableness cases of Edison and PG&E presided over by ALJ Patrick
for ALJ Patrick's consideration of the consolidation request. SDG&E's
energy procurement reasonableness case presumably would continue to be
presided over by ALJ Barnett. It is SDG&E's understanding that ALJ Patrick
has not yet convened a prehearing conference on Edison's and PG&E's 3rd
ATCP
applications, so parties who wish to participate in the TCBA reasonableness
cases will have the opportunity to do so.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this proposal. Thanks. Please
call me if you have any questions. My phone number is 619/699-5136.
=====================================
|
4,065 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28989.
=====================================
Senate approves Edison rescue deal, Assembly measure stalled
By Jennifer Coleman
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- The state Senate approved a bill that significantly alters
the plan negotiated by Gov. Gray Davis to help the struggling utility
Southern California Edison.
The bill approved Friday, authored by Democratic Sens. Richard Polanco and
Byron Sher, lets Edison issue $2.5 billion in revenue bonds to pay debts
amassed when prices for wholesale electricity reached record-high levels in
the last year.
"I believe it's a measure that gets us to the goal of getting the state out
of the business of buying electricity ... and to bring this entity to
creditworthiness," said Polanco, D-Los Angeles.
Approved 22-17, the bill now goes to the Assembly. The Assembly adjourned
Friday night without voting on a similar measure.
The Polanco-Sher plan shifts the burden of repaying the bonds to commercial
and industrial power users and has been opposed by business interests and by
Edison, which says it won't help the company escape bankruptcy.
Davis' plan, announced in April, offers Edison $2.76 billion for its
transmission system and lets it sell revenue bonds to repay the rest of its
estimated $3.5 billion worth of debt generated when it had to pay
skyrocketing wholesale power prices.
Under the plan by Polanco, and Sher, of Stanford, the state has a five-year
option to buy Edison's grid.
That, said Republican Sen. Ross Johnson of Irvine, gives Edison a bailout it
"neither needs nor deserves.
"I am tired of this projection of Edison as a victim. They have their legion
of lobbyists here telling us ad nauseam that they didn't support
deregulation," Johnson said during floor debate. "The idea of Edison as the
victim goes down in the annals of real whoppers. Edison paid their lobbyists
bonuses for the successful passage of deregulation."
During the 1995-1996 deliberations that led to deregulation, Edison officials
helped create the current system in meetings with business interests and
then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican.
Lawmakers are set to go on summer break Friday night until Aug. 20, a
schedule that conflicts with the deadline in the Memorandum of Understanding
between Davis and Edison. That says the Legislature must approve the deal by
Aug. 15.
"It's a firm deadline, which means this issue has to be fully resolved prior
to the end of the legislative recess," Davis said Friday.
For that to happen, either the Senate bill or a proposal by Assembly Speaker
Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek,
has to reach Davis.
"I have problems with both bills," Davis said. "I am heartened by the fact
that there's a bill moving in each house."
The Keeley-Hertzberg plan trims at least $300 million from the governor's
offer. It also allows Edison to issue the bonds, which would be repaid by
Edison ratepayers over 10 years.
The plan also attempts to increase the state's use of "green" energy
resources and allow Edison customers to opt for cheaper direct-access energy
service.
The Assembly didn't vote on the Keeley bill Friday, because Hertzberg is
considering forming a working group with the Senate and the administration to
"iron out the bills' differences," said Hertzberg's spokesman Paul Hefner.
Davis said he wanted any working group to continue working over the summer
break to devise a compromise by the Aug. 15 deadline.
"I don't want people to go out fishing for 30 days and come back and worry
about it on Aug. 20 because I know we're going to have reapportionment and
other major issues to deal with in that last month," the governor said.
On the Net:
Read the bills, AB82xx by Keeley and SB78xx by Polanco, at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
Read the governor's Memorandum of Understanding at
=====================================
|
4,066 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly; Commentary on Refund Issue, Windfa
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28241.
=====================================
<<IPW070201.doc>>
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
Summary:
1. IPPs Rise 3.7% Last week the Independent Power Producers posted their
strongest stock price performance since mid-May. Our composite was up 3.7%,
outperforming the S&P 500 (+0.0%), but underperforming the NASDAQ (6.6%).
Mirant was the strongest performer in the group, rising 10.9%. Reliant
Resources was the weakest, falling 2.3%. While the IPPs show some signs of
renewed strength last week, we believe "technical" end-of-the-quarter
selling pressure combined with lingering political concerns prevented a more
significant rally from taking place.
2. Refund Issue Dominates Investor Attention The most visible political
concern revolves around the issue of potential retroactive refunds for power
generators. We believe closure on this matter could be forthcoming over the
next month, most likely in the form of a FERC order. In our view, Strong
Buy rated Calpine offers the best downside protection, given that the bulk
of its sales in California have taken place outside the spot market. We
would also cite Buy rated Mirant, which has taken sizable reserves against
its California earnings. For the whole group, we believe any resolution
will have a positive impact on market psychology and, valuations which have
compressed 29%, year to date.
3. Windfall Profits Tax On July 9, the California Assembly Revenue and
Taxation Committee will consider SB 1X-the power generator windfall profits
tax bill. This hearing was originally scheduled to take place on July 2.
Our contacts in Sacramento indicate that the bill does not have broad
support and expect the bill to "die" at some point in the legislative
process.
4. Q2 EPS Preview The bulk of the IPPs will report second quarter earnings
during the weeks of July 23 and July 30. Below we review our estimates and
expectations for the industry. Generally, we expect solid growth across the
sector driven by recent acquisition and development activity. In
particular, we believe Calpine and Black Hills offer the greatest potential
for upside EPS surprises.
5. CSFB Power Generation Supply Chain Conference On September 10 and 11,
CSFB will host a Power Generation Supply Chain Conference at the Plaza Hotel
in New York City. This event is designed to provide investors with a
wholistic perspective on all aspects of the sector-from coal and natural gas
companies, to equipment and construction service providers, to the power
producers themselves. Please contact us if you would like additional
information.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
Bryan Sifert 212/325-3906
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
- IPW070201.doc
=====================================
|
4,067 |
Subject: Internet Daily for January 2, 2002
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1520.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Wednesday, January 2, 2002
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Women are majority of eshoppers
An estimated 29 million Internet users bought gifts online
during the holiday shopping season, and 58% of them were women,
according to a nationwide study by the Pew Internet & American
Life Project.
"It's a vote of confidence for the online environment," said Lee
Rainie, the project's director. "It means women think of the
Internet in a much more serious way." Last year, online shoppers
were even split between men and women. For women, a major
attraction of online shopping is its time-saving efficiency,
Rainie said.
AOL Time Warner's AOL found a trend among its shoppers.
"Overall, females accounted for 64% of all shopping,
underscoring the extent to which AOL's shopping audience is
paralleling offline retailing and making online buying a habit,"
the company said in a release. AOL added its members spent $33
billion online during 2001, an increase of 67% from the prior
year's levels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Online job sites frustrate
There's a whole lot of lookin' going on, but not much hiring.
That's the complaint of many users of online job sites, such as
Hotjobs.com and Monster.com, according to The Wall Street
Journal, which cites the experience of a 37-year-old Indiana
woman as a representative example. Grace Dubois spends five
hours a day searching through job boards. She has applied for
nearly 400 positions in the health-care industry; seven have
resulted in job interviews.
Her experience is supported by research, the newspaper reported.
Outplacement consultants Drake Beam Morin said Internet job
resources account for only 6% of management-level job hiring.
CareerXroads, a consulting company that publishes an annual
guide to job boards, found corporate Web sites are the most
effective resources for job seekers.
The biggest complaint from users of CareerJournal, the job site
operated by the Journal, is there are not enough listings. There
are about 23,000 jobs posted, down from 35,000 a year ago. Any
failure to follow up with applicants is the fault of employers,
not employment sites, Dimitri Boylan, president of Hotjobs.com
-- soon to be acquired by Yahoo -- told The Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AOL blocks Harvard acceptance emails
America Online cannot explain why it blocked delivery of about
100 emails to applicants from Harvard University's admissions
office. Harvard said it used email to notify almost 6,000
students who applied for early admission, the Associated Press
reported. While between 75 and 100 messages were bounced back to
Harvard, most of the applicants telephoned the admissions office
to get their answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,068 |
Subject: A $10 Gift for Your Amazoniversary
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/200.
=====================================
Dear Amazon.com Customer,
What's an Amazoniversary? Two years ago this month, you placed your
very first order (using this e-mail address) with Amazon.com. To
extend our thanks--and show you how much growing we've done--we're
inviting you back with $10 off your next order of $50 or more.
http://www.amazon.com/sept-amazoniversary/
So celebrate any way you like: with a bestselling book, a new
DVD release, or a CD player--it's up to you. But be sure to take
advantage of this exclusive $10 savings before it expires on
September 30. (See details below.)
We look forward to all your Amazoniversaries to come!
David Risher
Senior VP and Amazon Customer of 5 Years (and Counting)
Amazon.com
PS: Interested in receiving even more Amazon.com value with every
purchase? Sign up for the Amazon.com NextCard Visa and start
earning points toward free books, music, videos, and more. Apply
online today:
http://www.amazon.com/nextcard6/
Don't delete! This is your $10 Amazon.com promotional certificate.
******************************************************************
Amount: $10 off your Amazon.com purchase of $50 or more.
Claim Code: SAMK-34UNHD-EABVE4
Expires: September 30, 2001
To redeem your $10 promotional certificate, simply:
1. Go to Amazon.com.
2. Select the items you want (totaling $50 or more) and add them
to your Shopping Cart.
3. Click the "Proceed to checkout" button. At the Pay section of the
progress bar, you'll see a box on the lower part of the page that
says, "Do you have a gift certificate or promotional claim code?"
4. Enter your claim code in the space provided to redeem your
promotional certificate. Then click the Continue button and complete
the order form.
5. You'll know you have placed your order when you reach a screen
that says, "Thank you for your order. We will send you an e-mail
confirmation shortly." If you want to review the details of your
order, click the appropriate links in the "Managing your order"
box, or the Your Account link in the upper right corner of the
page.
The fine print:
Offer must be redeemed at http://www.amazon.com toward the purchase
of products sold by Amazon.com and listed in Amazon.com's online
catalog. Offer cannot be redeemed at Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de,
Amazon.fr, Amazon.co.jp, or any other Web site operated by
Amazon.com, its affiliates, or third-party merchants accessible from
our site (including, for example, our Health & Beauty store operated
by drugstore.com). Offer not valid in Amazon Marketplace, Auctions,
or zShops.
Purchase must total $50 or more, excluding shipping charges and tax.
Please use our Shopping Cart rather than our 1-Click ordering method
if you want to apply this promotional certificate.
You must pay for the order with a credit card. If you return items
purchased with a promotional certificate, you will not receive a
refund for the amount of the promotional certificate.
Limit one offer per customer and one offer per purchase. Offer not
valid with other promotional certificates.
Offer must be applied at the time of the order and cannot be applied
to orders already placed with us.
Offer cash value is 1/10th of one cent and is not for resale.
This promotional certificate will expire at 11:59 p.m. PDT on
September 30, 2001.
If you have any questions, please see the Help section of our site at
http://www.amazon.com/help
We hope you enjoyed receiving this message. However, if you'd rather
not receive future e-mails of this sort from Amazon.com, please use
the link below or click the Your Account button in the top right
corner of any page on the Amazon.com Web site. Under the Your Account
Settings heading, click the "Update your communication preferences"
link.
http://www.amazon.com/your-account/
Please note that this message was sent to the following e-mail
address:
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,069 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #27
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12403.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW051401.pdf>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 0.5% Last week our IPP composite traded off 0.5%,
outperforming both the NASDAQ (-3.8%) and the S&P 500 (-1.7%). Mirant was
the strongest performer, rising 7.8%. AES was the weakest, falling 8.7%.
2. Investors Focus on Calif. Windfall Profits Tax Proposal On Monday
evening (5/7), the California State Senate passed windfall profits tax bill,
calling for a 100% tax on power sales over $80 per Mwh. We believe the
proposal should be seen as a negotiating tactic to force generators to lower
prices. Should the bill get passed in its current form, we believe CPN, MIR
and NRG's exposure is limited by their power sales contracts. Regardless,
the bill presents interesting federal/state jurisdictional issues, which
could form the basis for a legal challenge.
3. AES: Time for Investors to Take "Another Look" On Friday, AES hosted a
conference call to address investor concerns regarding Latin America. On
the call, management reaffirmed its prior guidance for 2001 of $1.75 -
$1.90. While we acknowledge the risks presented by the Brazilian
situation and the potential for additional negative catalysts, in our view,
given current price levels, now is an ideal time for investors to take
"another look" at AES. The stock is trading close to its 52 week valuation
trough. Indeed, we believe it is safe to assume that the market has already
priced-in an earnings disappointment. AES's 52 week median 2001 P/E is
27.8x. If we regard this level as AES's normalized valuation, the market is
implying that it will earn about $1.59 in 2001-16% below our base case
estimate and 6% below the bottom-end of management's range of guidance. See
our FC note issued today for more details.
4. Looking Ahead: Mirant Hosting Analyst Meeting on 5/14 and 5/15 MIR will
host its first major analyst seminar on May 14 and 15 in Atlanta. We
believe the meeting will be an important catalyst for the stock. MIR is
currently trading at 22.2 times our 2001 EPS estimate, representing a 17%
discount to the group average. Since the beginning of the year, earnings
expectations for Mirant have increased by 73%. We believe MIR's relative
valuation discount reflects investor confusion surrounding the drivers of
the recent upside as well as skepticism surrounding the sustainability of
earnings growth over the next few years. We believe management will address
these issues at the analyst meeting, which should help close some of the
valuation gap between MIR and its peers.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
Bryan Sifert 212/325-3906
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
- IPW051401.pdf
=====================================
|
4,070 |
Subject: RE: San Diego Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2862.
=====================================
I think our discussion about an incremental charge applying to customers of
all statuses was with regard to our speculation on how the "new CTC" payback
mechanism would work, not San Diego. I think the payback mechanism is still
speculation.
There are many differing alternatives.
That's my recollection.
From: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/29/2001 11:05 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Marty
Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: RE: San Diego Update
I've have talked to Harry. I think I just misunderstood.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:32 AM
To: Williams, Robert C.
Cc: Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James; Sunde, Marty; Sharp, Vicki
Subject: RE: San Diego Update
I don't recall Lay saying that the increase should apply to DA customers. We
should discuss further just to make sure that we're all on the same page.
Best,
Jeff
Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate 05/24/2001 09:26 AM To: Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: RE: San Diego Update
Harry, Marty Sunde, Jeff Dasovich and I were on a trip with Ken Lay last
week. I understood from Marty that Ken may believe that all customers,
including direct access, should pay the increase you mention. Marty? This
was encouraging from a litigation exposure standpoint because, to the extent
all consumers are treated alike, our DA customers who were resourced to
utility service cannot claim to have been disadvantaged by our action. The
converse is also true: if they have to pay because they were put back on
utility service they may try to pass that cost through to us. To the extent
that any increase is to pay back DWR for buying power 2/1/01-3/31/02, and
those on DA are not required to pay this, EES could have a substantial
exposure to its customers. Maybe we need to modify our strategy to take
this into account.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kingerski, Harry
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:48 AM
To: Sunde, Marty; Benevides, Dennis; Dotson, Marcus; Williams, Robert C.;
Frazier, Lamar; Stoness, Scott; Johnson, Tamara
Cc: Lawner, Leslie; Steffes, James; Neustaedter, Robert; Mara, Susan;
Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: San Diego Update
SDGE's Advice Letter filing confirms that the ABX143 rate freeze of 6.5 cents
does not apply to direct access.
In hearings on SDGE's potential rate increase for large customers:
SDGE has proposed to allocate all retained generation to small customers
(below 100 kw). Large customers would be served by DWR (or be direct
access). It's apparent several parties have major problems with this.
It is interesting that SDGE has calculated the expected rate increase under
their plan as 2.86 cents. If large customers are allocated a piece of
retained generation, the increase goes up to 2.99 cents. In the latter case,
large customers retain a CTC (related to QF contracts and other long term
stranded costs) that they would lose in the former case.
Our involvement is to get an order 1) excluding DA from any rate increase
(the proposed 2.86 cents) 2) excluding DA from any surcharge related to
undercollection from the rate freeze (an amount that is not known at this
point) 3) prorating the surcharge related to undercollection if the customer
switches from DA to bundled service during the rate freeze period 4) ensuring
there is a return to market pricing once the rate freeze is over.
PUC decisions on these issues are expected June 28. There is no discussion
of restricting movement between bundled service and DA. On our issues noted
above, #1, 2, 4 have high probability of success; # 3 is 50/50.
=====================================
|
4,071 |
Subject: CPUC Hearing in SD on 9/8
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1321.
=====================================
In light of the Commerce Committee Hearing and the FERC Hearing on the 11th
and 12th, wanted to provide a quick synopsis of the CPUC Hearing in SD.
It was the same quasi-legislative format as the previous hearing. Speakers
were invited by the Commission and only the ALJ and the Commissioners could
cross-examine the witnesses. Commissioners Lynch and Wood presided. Michael
Kahn, chairman of the Electricity Oversight Board was there and participated
in some cross-examination as well.
Speakers were:
ISO:
Kellan Fluckiger, COO
Anjali Sheffrin, Director of Market Analysis
Frank Wolak, Chairman of Market Surveillance Committee
Cal PX:
David Jermain, former VP, Compliance, Audits & Reg. Affairs
Seth Wilson,
South Coast Air Quality Management District:
Carol Coy, Deputy Executive Director
CPUC:
Harvey Morris, Principal Attorney
SDG&E:
Donald Garber
ISO's main message was that many factors contribute to the high prices in the
wholesale market:
1. Demand growth over past two years at or around 5% (98-99, 99-00)
2. Lack of generation additions in entire west
3. Reduced imports of electricity from NW, due to low hydro and policy to
retain water in spring.
4. Natural Gas price increases over 1999, at almost 2x's 1999 levels in
August
5. Nox emissions trading at or around $40/pound
6. Increased underscheduling from June-August
ISO has concluded that the reduction in the price caps (from $500 to $250)
have increased the overall cost of electricity, with the highest total
cost/MWh ($180) experienced in August, relative to $167/MWh in June and $118
in July. Reason given is that the caps have reduced markup (could be
interpreted as generator profit) in peak hours, but supply costs have been
driven up in lower load hours.
While ISO staff said they will seek an extension of its authority from FERC
to be set price caps, also raised concerns about the affect any further
reductions would have on the market. They conclude that such a reduction
would deter new investment, preclude generators from recovering fixed costs
of production, and increase dependence on OOM purchases (as a result of lower
imports).
ISO staff will make a proposal to the ISO Board, October 6, to do the
following:
1. File for extension of price cap authority to FERC.
2. Request FERC to institute mandatory forward contract requirement on
generators for a significant portion of their capacity.
3. CPUC should allow full peak requirements to be forward contracted and
hedged by UDCs
4. CPUC and state should promote price responsive demand programs
5. Maintain sufficient planning reserves.
ISO Staff also stated that:
1. Need to create disincentive for underscheduling for load and generation
a. Charge OOM cost to underscheduled load
b. Charge replacement reserve cost to underscheduled generation
c. Additional charge for real-time market transactions
2. Attract and expedite new resources
MARKET POWER:
While the Commissioners spent the majority of the day picking apart the
underlying reasons for the rise in prices, the conclusion of the hearing was
President Lynch asking the ISO and PX to name names on who has been exerting
market power. Both the PX and the ISO said that it would be impossible to
determine from the information they have. Secondly, the analysis they have
done show that no single market participant is consistently exhibiting the
ability (opportunity) to exercise market power. Therefore, at one point or
another, nearly every market participant has market power.
Wolak suggested that in order to reduce the amount of market power in peak
periods, require forward contracting OR increase profit incentives in
off-peak period, where generators many times sell below short-run marginal
costs.
No further quasi-legislative hearings are planned.
=====================================
|
4,072 |
Subject: Telecom Technology: Fiber Optics: Storage and bandwidth services
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4694.
=====================================
An interesting article regarding Akara and what it is doing in the
marketplace.
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/13/2000 01:34 PM -----
[email protected]
12/13/2000 01:29 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecom Technology: Fiber Optics: Storage and bandwidth services
company launched
Storage and bandwidth services company launched
By Heather Harreld InfoWorld.com
12/11/2000
InfoWorld Daily News
(c) Copyright 2000 InfoWorld Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
A new optical networking company with a product designed to offer enterprise
customers high-speed storage and bandwidth on demand for less than half
today's going rate is entering the increasing crowded optical market
Armed with $17 million in first round venture capital and a management team
of former executives from Nortel and Alcatel, Ottawa, Ontario-based Akara
Monday announced plans to offer service providers access to optical bandwidth
for 50 to 75 percent less than today's costs. For enterprise customers, this
will mean the availability of optical bandwidth on demand for new
applications like high-speed storage and video on demand, said Ed Ogonek,
president and CEO of the new concern.
"What we're providing is a technology ...that allows you to better utilize
the fiber infrastructure that you take out to a metro and the enterprise
customer," he said. "We're focusing first on a technology that will better
tie together multi-gigabit Ethernet ports onto a single fiber."
While other companies have focused on building up the optical network metro,
core and backbone, creating large amounts of optical bandwidth in the network
core, Akara will be focusing its efforts on providing efficient and less
costly access to that core bandwidth, Ogonek said. As a result, large
enterprise customers now buying multiple fiber links to deliver different
high-speed services can consolidate those fiber channel circuits on a single
fiber, he said.
Chris Nicholl, senior analyst at Current Analysis Inc. in Sterling, Va., said
that because the optical networking market is so competitive, Akara's success
will depend on its ability to carve out a clearly defined market niche.
"The issues on the access side are how can you cost-effectively provide
access to not just the next generation of services but the legacy services
...in such a way that when the next generation of services are available
you've got the infrastructure," he said.
But Tom Nolle, president of CIMI, a consultancy in Voorhees, N.J., said that
his company has calculated that there are fewer than 1,000 company locations
in the U.S. that can justify multiple optical feeds. In fact, companies
usually can't justify multiple optical links unless they have 7,000 or more
employees located at a site, he said.
"The bandwidth of the core ...will be unlocked by one and only one thing, and
that's DSL ...because DSL can be made accessible to tens of millions of
people," Nolle said. "Fiber is not going to serve a population of billions."
Y wou
"http://www.infoworld.com/about/copyright.html
Copyright (c) 2000 InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. "http://www.infoworld.com
InfoWorld.com is a member of "http://www.idg.net
IDG.net
Folder Name: Telecom Technology: Fiber Optics
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 67
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,073 |
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/749.
=====================================
Edison did not bring up the refund issue at all (doesn't mean that they won't, though). Agree on the AB 1890 issue. The clock stops in March of '02.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Curry, Wanda
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:44 PM
To: Colwell, Wes
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: FW: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Wes,
If Edison sticks to their plan, they will want to meet before November 7th. They are wanting to discuss completely different issues than PG&E To date, PG&E issues have been focused around the outcome of the FERC refund case. I have worked through a couple of examples of this under collection issue with Jeff and we agree, Edison's argument that the DA load contributed to the under collection is "technically" correct. We will have to work with Jeff to build a compelling argument that ESP's should not be required to continue to contribute to the under collection, especially as of March 31, 2002, the end of the rate freeze as required in AB 1890. Somehow we have to convince "the regulators" that the original intent of the de-reg bill, that utilities recover what they can through no later than March, 02, stay in place for the current DA load.
Will keep you posted.
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:02 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.; Kean, Steven J.; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann; Calger, Christopher F.; Belden, Tim; Dietrich, Janet
Subject: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I talked to John Fielder (SVP Edison) about setting up a meeting for Barry Tycholiz with Edison's CFO about hedging Edison's QF price risk. Fielder wanted to talk about the negative CTC issue. Here's what he said:
They plan to "settle" with the ESPs and pay them when they pay everyone else, which he re-iterated would be sometime in Q1'02.
Edison is holding firm to the notion that the negative CTC contributed to the utility's undercollection and that the ESP's share of the undercollection has to be netted against the payables attributable to the negative CTC and owed the ESP.
He said that they will propose to net it out in one of two ways: 1) lump sum netting (i.e., if they owe $50MM and the share of the undercollection is $30 MM, then they pay the ESP $20 MM; or 2) future reductions in PX Credit (i.e., they pay the ESP $50 MM, and then reduce the PX going forward until the $30 MM is paid down). The numbers are illustrative only.
In addition, he said that they have the view that a decision is going to have to be made about 1) whether DA customers pay for stranded costs tied to the DWR L-T contracts, and 2) whether DA customers pay going forward for stranded costs tied to the QF contracts. (Edison is clearly lobbying the PUC to get DA customers to pay for these costs.)
I recommended strongly that he de-link issues 1 and 2 above from the issue of paying us ASAP what they owe us for negative CTC. He agreed.
He said that the PUC judge's recently issued pre-hearing conference order requires that Edison "meet and confer" with ESPs prior to the Nov. 7th hearing, and that Edison intends to set something up with ESPs prior to that hearing.
Fielder is also the point person on "getting ESPs paid" and intends to initiate settlement discussions with ESPs week after next.
It was very clear from the conversation that Edison is going to do everything possible (at the expense of creditors) to maximize headroom under the settlement it struck with the PUC a few weeks ago. Edison's stalemate with the QFs is evidence of it. We shouldn't assume anything different with the Negative CTC issue.
If you have any questions, let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,074 |
Subject: RE: Fresno sub Project
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Richard Crevelt/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange', 'Tom', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/csu_fresno/10.
=====================================
I just had a good conversation with Dirk and told him you were unavailable
til Weds but that I would work with him and Rob on Mon and Tue, so forewarned
is forearmed or something like that....
Wu
---------------------- Forwarded by Andrew Wu/HOU/EES on 03/10/2000 05:56 PM
---------------------------
From: Dirk vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on 03/10/2000
07:46 PM CST
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Richard Crevelt/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Tom
Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Rob Cone/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Geoff Pollard/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James Trudeau/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: RE: Fresno sub Project
Jeff - would you have any time Monday PM? We are having marathon meetings
here until 1 PM. thanks,
Dirk A.van Ulden
Director, Account and Facility Management
San Ramon District
(925) 543-3879
Fax (925) 543-3550
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich,Jeff
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:30 PM
To: vanUlden, Dirk
Cc: Crevelt, Richard; Riley, Tom; Cone, Rob; Pollard, Geoff; Wu,Andrew;
Huth,Douglas; Kaufman,Paul; Trudeau,James
Subject: RE: Fresno sub Project
Be happy to discuss. I'm in Portland and traveling tomorrow. Monday would
be better, but if it is urgent to discuss on Friday, just let me know and I
can re-arrange my schedule.
From: Dirk vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on 03/09/2000
08:11 PM CST
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Richard Crevelt/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Tom
Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Rob Cone/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Geoff Pollard/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James Trudeau/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: RE: Fresno sub Project
Jeff - This has been a textbook "nice guys finish last" experience for over
one year. The project is slipping away from us as is our reputation. We need
to devise an aggressive plan immediately to get those recalcitrants at PG&E
and their mouthpieces to understand that Enron means business.
Our record with the UC/CSU contract is already marginal, and by kowtowing to
those utility-types we will blow it altogether.
Unless I am missing a bigger picture issue, you need to tell me how we can
escalate this issue to the highest level at PG&E and the CPUC. I can't
imagine a $42 billion outfit being afraid of a bunch of wire and pipe guys.
As a former PG&E manager I know who was given attention and it wasn't the
meek. I am inclined to go with a recommendation by Jim Trudeau that we start
raising hell.
CSU Fresno is ready to escalate to Sacramento (read President Welty,
Chancellor Reed, Gov. Davis) upon our command. We need a parallel effort.
Tom Riley and I would like to discuss with you on Friday.
Dirk A.van Ulden
Director, Account and Facility Management
San Ramon District
(925) 543-3879
Fax (925) 543-3550
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich,Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:38 AM
To: vanUlden, Dirk
Cc: Crevelt, Richard; Riley, Tom; Cone, Rob; Pollard, Geoff; Wu,Andrew;
Huth,Douglas
Subject: Re: Fresno sub Project
I have some ideas. We should discuss. But let's be clear on thing, there's
no single, silver bullet. Please let me know when you'd like to discuss the
situation. I think that if there was a case where we could break a log jam,
this one's it, due to the client's background, knowledge and savvy. But it
will be nonetheless quite difficult. I hope I didn't come on too strong on
the call yesterday--feedback's appreciated. Andy, please call me when you
get a chance. Best, Jeff
=====================================
|
4,075 |
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Big, Bad Surf Moving]]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/7910.
=====================================
Jeff,
You might want to keep this in mind when you're up at the Dome after X-mas.
Go on over to Anchor Bay on Tuesday and check out how big it is. The surf's
coming in! Now all I have to do is find out what San Diego will be like. So
far, they're predicting 7"+. Not as big as up here, but fun nevertheless,
and a lot better than getting hit on by daughter Hopkins.
LATE!
>From: Kent Deverell <[email protected]>
>To: Scott Laughlin <[email protected]>
>Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Big, Bad Surf Moving]]
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:28:22 -0800
>
>Check this shit out. It's going to be macking.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [Fwd: Big, Bad Surf Moving]
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:06:35 -0800
>From: Jon Wyman <[email protected]>
>Organization: Fluid Inc
>To: Kent Deverell <[email protected]>
>
>Feeling lucky? I think I'm going to hit Lindemar or the HMB Jetty
>Saturday a.m. if you're interested.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Big, Bad Surf Moving
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:20 -0800
> From: Sean Gibson <[email protected]>
> To: "Carlos Flores (E-mail)" <[email protected]>,"Jonathan Wyman
> (E-mail)" <[email protected]>,"Glenn Kohner
> (E-mail)"<[email protected]>,"Auran Piatigorsky
> (E-mail)"<[email protected]>,"Daniel Donahoe (E-mail)"
> <[email protected]>,"Peter Macey (E-mail)"
> <[email protected]>,"Will Hartley
> (E-mail)"<[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>Time to buy a gun...
>
> Northern California Surf Forecast
>
> Effective 12/20/00
>
> HIGH SURF ADVISORY FOR ALL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
>
> I hope you like big surf, 'cause we have plenty moving in!
>
>As the writing of this forecast 8:00 AM Wednesday, the NW buoy in Hawaii
>is already showing 15' @17 seconds. The first signs of our newest series
> of mega swells moving into our coastline. Those of you that have been
> paying attention know that these swells take about 3 days to hit our
> coast fromthe Hawaiian Islands.
>
> All models are in agreement with open ocean swell heights of between
> 30-40' even after they leave the Hawaiian chain. There are three major
> swells tracking across the Pacific. The first will begin to show on our
> coast mid day on Friday, with most beaches seeing long period surf at
>the NW facing beaches in the 15'+ range, with bigger sets possible. Deep
> water spots coupled with the long swell period (up to 20+ seconds) will
> see double that size at least. The meat of the first system will hit
> more towards Crescent City, with plenty of energy left for northern
> California. The swell direction looks excellent at 280-295 degrees. It
> will become steeper as the swell tracks to the east on Sunday.
>
> Look for this first system to provide huge surf all day on Saturday,
>with still solid surf on Sunday, though backing down through the day. By
> late Sunday, a second solid swell will move in with surf heights not
> quite as big as the first one, but still in the 10-12' range is
> expected. Look for continued solid surf through Monday, lingering into
> Tuesday. Then....are you ready for this????? Yet another macker is due
> on Tuesday with surf heights again reaching the solid double overhead
> range, however, this one is still a ways off, but the charts show some
> impressive size and long swell periods.
>
>So, to summarize...IT"S GONNA BE BIG!!! Big guns only. Use your big wave
> wax!
>
> Know your limits. No shame staying on shore. Surf safe!!
>
> Cyber Kahuna
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=====================================
|
4,076 |
Subject: FERC Technical Conference on Transport to California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3677.
=====================================
SUMMARY: Staff of the Federal Regulatory Commission will convene a
technical conference to address current and projected interstate natural gas
pipeline capacity to California, as well as the adequacy of the natural gas
infrastructure within California. This notice establishes the date for the
conference and the procedures by which interested parties can seek to
participate in it.
DATES: The conference will be held May 24, 2001. Those interested in making
presentations or participating in discussions should indicate their interest
by May 14, 2001 by a letter addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
(MORE DETAIL FROM NOTICE)
California Natural Gas Transportation Docket No. PL01-4-000
Infrastructure
NOTICE OF STAFF TECHNICAL CONFERENCE
(May 3, 2001)
Take notice that the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will
hold a public conference on Thursday, May 24, 2001, to address issues
regarding the natural gas transportation infrastructure with respect to
California. The conference will begin at 10:00 a.m., at the Commission's
offices, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. All interested
persons are invited to attend.
As Commission staff has dealt with various aspects of the current energy
situation in California, questions have arisen regarding current and
projected interstate natural gas pipeline capacity to California, as well as
the adequacy of the natural gas infrastructure within California. Commission
staff is interested in the views of natural gas transporters, producers,
consumers, regulators, and other interested parties with respect to issues
including:
1) current and projected interstate pipeline capacity to California;
2) current and projected capacity of California intrastate pipelines and
other natural gas infrastructure;
3) physical and operational interconnection between the interstate and
intrastate transportation systems;
4) current and projected California demand for natural gas; and
5) how intrastate capacity in California is allocated.
The conference will not include the discussion of any ongoing proceedings
before the Commission.
The conference will be organized in two stages. The first stage will
consist of presentations of factual information on the topics listed above.
The second stage will consist of discussion on the topics.
3
Persons interested in making presentations or participating in any
discussion should indicate their interest no later than May 14, 2001 by a
letter addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE, Washington, D.C., 20426, and should refer to Docket No.
PL01-4-000. Each request to participate must include a contact person,
telephone number, and E-mail address.
Each request must also indicate whether the person is interested in making a
presentation or participating in discussion. For those interested in making
presentations, the request should indicate what topics the presentation will
cover. Because of the potential need to limit the number of presentations,
those with common interests are encouraged to choose a single spokesperson.
After receipt of the requests, staff may issue a subsequent notice setting
forth the conference format, or may inform participants of the format at the
beginning of the conference. Depending on the number of presentations, it
may be necessary for staff to contact presenters prior to the conference to
coordinate the presentations.
---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT on 05/03/2001
02:28 PM ---------------------------
"Randall Rich" <[email protected]> on 05/03/2001 01:08:21 PM
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FYI
FERC Conference on Transport to Calif.
- PL01-4.doc
=====================================
|
4,077 |
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Amendment 30
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/705.
=====================================
WPTF has just voted to file a protest on Amendment 30 (the ISO is asking to
be able to buy power for itself in the forward market). I agreed to fund as
did 4, maybe 5, others. The discussion was not exactly as you describe below
but I will be able to have lots of input on the filing, and am sure I can get
the points included. Therefore, I recommend that Enron NOT make a separate
filing on this.
Here is what WPTF voted on: Ask FERC to limit ISO procurement only to the
super peak product that has already been developed by the APX and require
that the price caps end in 6 months; if the ISO wishes to renew the price
caps it would have to file 60 days in advance of the 6-month deadline.
Mary Hain@ECT
09/28/2000 12:28 PM
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc: <[email protected]>@ENRON, <[email protected]>@ENRON,
<[email protected]>@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected]
Subject: Cal ISO Amendment 30
Sue- in WPTF's protest of Amendment 30, is WPTF proposing to make the
following arguments? If not we need to have Ron give an estimate for an RCR
and draft a protest.
Amendment 30, which would allow the Cal ISO to do limited forward contracting
and to allocate the costs thereof to under/overschedulers (protests due
Oct.2)the traders would like to say that the ISO should not be in the forward
market, rather the IOUs should be in the forward market and should be
incented to do so. Rather than doing anything to fix this failure to hedge
and underscheduling by the IOUs, this filing would further amplify the
problem by concentrating even more transactions with the ISO and lead to the
slippery slope to the ISO running the entire market.
Since, the filing also creates other problems. Through the proposal to do
bilateral deals without first receiving bids, the ISO moved itself out of
compliance with Order No. 2000 (assuming it ever complied) by starting to
violate the independence characteristic - the FERC's first minimum
characteristic for an RTO. Under this, the RTO is required to be independent
of market participants. Order No. 2000 defines a market participant as any
entity or its affiliate that buys or sells electric energy in the RTO's
region or in any neighboring region that might be effected by the RTO's
actions.
Further, the ISO is already buying out of market and this move would further
complicate existing problems that we have with OOM.
In addition, although the filing claims that it's request is limited, yet
there is no time limitation. Further, the limitation seems to have little
real effect.
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
09/19/2000 03:23 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: New California Filings
There have been several recent filings related to California that you may
wish to intervene in and/or protest:
1. CAISO proposal to extend price cap (ER00-3673-000) (due Oct. 5);
2. CAISO compliance filing with San Diego order to make limited forward
contracting and to allocate the costs for those contracts to SCs whose
forward schedules do not reflect their actual real-time demands.
(ER00-3636-000) (due Oct. 2);
3. City of Vernon filing to join ISO (EL00-105-000) (due September 29).
This filing triggers the CAISO's TAC charge effective 1/1/01;
4. Complaint by Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, etc. regarding the CAISO's
collection of OOM incurred to meet system reliability and to require the
CAISO to abide by the cap in Neutrality Adjustment Charge.
Please let me know as soon as possible if you wish to intervene in and/or
protest any of these filings. Thanks. Ron
=====================================
|
4,078 |
Subject: RE: Legislators' "Plan B" to "Enhance" Governor's MOU w/Edison and
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12591.
=====================================
Could I get a copy of pl;an B (fax to 713 646-8525)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:18 PM
To: Kaufman, Paul; McCubbin, Sandra; Mara, Susan; [email protected]; Steffes,
James; Kingerski, Harry; Guerrero, Janel; Robertson, Linda; Briggs, Tom;
Hartsoe, Joe; Denne, Karen; [email protected]; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: Legislators' "Plan B" to "Enhance" Governor's MOU w/Edison and
Status Report
Sensitivity: Confidential
"Plan B"
As folks know, there's a group of moderate Democrats in the CA Assembly that
has been working on a "Plan B."
They've been working on it because they're not satisfied with the Governor's
MOU with Edison.
The Plan B group has been talking to a broad array of stakeholders, including
Republicans, to get input into how "Plan B" can improve upon the MOU.
First the good news about Plan B: a fairly bright group of legislators is
rolling up its sleeves and attempting to come up with a centrist solution to
the problem, and they're at least creating the appearance of trying to be
bi-partison about it. (There is at least one idea in Plan B that is
attributable to a Republican--Keith Richman--that Ken Lay met with a couple
of weeks ago.) So the beginnings of a process to resolve California's crisis
may be emerging.
Now the bad news: because they are trying to build a consensus, Plan B is a
mish-mash, isn't focused, includes some pretty bad ideas, excludes some good
ideas (like re-establishing Direct Access immediately), and is going to
require a lot more work to get right.
Update on Efforts to Achieve a Settlement
In the meeting with the suppliers that Steve Kean and I participated in
yesterday, one of the financial consultants hired by the Governor criticized
several of the Plan B proposals as unworkable.
On today's call with the Governor's staff and suppliers it became somewhat
apparent that the Governor isn't going drive a resolution, but will leave it
to the Legislature to take the lead role.
The staff emphasized repeatedly that the lawsuits, investigations, etc. were
not on the table for discussion in any global settlement talks, and that
attempting to bring them in to the negotiations was a nonstarter.
Instead, the Governor's staff said that the group should focus on the size of
the discount that suppliers would be willing to take.
The suppliers pushed back, stating that including haircuts in the talks while
excluding the lawsuits, investigations, etc. is one-sided and unworkable.
The staff urged the group to begin negotiations with the Legislature, but
made it fairly clear that the Governor would not be the one to pull the
necessary principals together in a room to hammer out a solution; his staff
implied instead that it's up to others, i.e., the suppliers, to get the
process of negotiations underway.
Next Steps
If the Governor's financial consultants are prepared by Friday, they will
brief suppliers on the ways in which the administration is attempting to
resolve the State's creditworthiness issue to encourage suppliers to do power
deals with CDWR. It they are not ready by Friday, the suppliers will meet
separately to discuss next steps.
Finally, there's been some confusion. My apologies.
Sandi faxed to Jim and Harry yesterday a copy of "Plan B." Sandi mentioned
that the Governor gave the Plan B group an analysis of the Plan. For those
that have a copy of Plan B, see the 10-page memo dated May 12th, attached to
the back of the Plan. The memo is from Joe Fichera to John Dutra, Fred
Keeley and Joe Nation (3 of the Plan B Democratic legislators). Joe Fichera
is the head of Saber Partners, a financial consulting group that the Governor
hired to advise him on the crisis.
If anyone has not yet received a copy of Plan B, please let me know and I'll
get it to you.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,079 |
Subject: Fwd: Another DJ Article re CAISO Real-Time Information Fed to WSCC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1061.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:30:12 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>,
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Another DJ Article re CAISO Real-Time Information Fed to WSCC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
DJ Calif Pwr Cos May Have Used ISO Data To Up Prices - WSCC
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--Electricity generators may have used real-time plant
activity reports from the state's grid operator to their advantage in
California's wholesale electricity market, according to an official with the
Western Systems Coordinating Council.
Federal and state regulators are probing California's wholesale electricity
market, looking for signs of market manipulation. The agencies are expected
to complete separate investigations into California's power crisis in about
two weeks.
They could force generators to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars if
the probe determines generators manipulated the market using the real-time
data, Dow Jones Newswires has learned from a high level source at the state's
Attorney General's office.
At issue is real-time information the California Independent System Operator
provided the Western Systems Coordinating Council, an governmental
organization that monitors electricity reliability in the western U.S., about
power plant activity in the state.
The real-time information allows market participants, which include companies
such as Duke Energy North America (DUK), Reliant Energy (REI) and Southern
Energy Co. (SO), to access data via an Internet site that shows how much
capacity a plant with more than 200 megawatts has online at any given moment.
Data about a power plant outage can also be obtained.
Data Intended To Be Used To Monitor Grid Reliability
The information was intended to be used to monitor electric reliability on
the grid by the WSCC and 30 other transmission operators in the western U.S.
But in order to allow other grid operators to access the data, the ISO was
forced to make it available beginning in March 1999 to all market
participants, according to WSCC standards and practices.
Last month, however, the ISO's attorney's alerted the WSCC that the "data is
being used against them and to game the market," according to Bill Commish,
director of dispatch with the WSCC.
Commish is in charge of the real-time database and ensures that the ISO is
providing the state's power plant activity to the WSCC.
Commish said generators could use the information to withhold supply and
drive up power prices or to identify transmission congestion in a particular
region and use that to gouge customers.
However, the ISO, which controls about 75% of the state's power grid and
real-time market, may have violated a FERC rule because it is required to
keep such information confidential for 90 days, an ISO attorney told the WSCC.
Beginning Monday, the ISO will no longer provide such information to the WSCC
or other market participants.
The source in the Attorney General's office said the investigation is
focusing on a number of companies who may have used the information to
manipulate the market and earn a "hefty" profit. The source said the Attorney
General is paying close attention to companies that posted huge profits
during the third quarter as a result of high wholesale profits in California.
Generators would be forced to refund customers and utilities and criminal
charges may be filed against the companies, the source said.
-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 19-10-00
=====================================
|
4,080 |
Subject: Re: Siting Committee Hearing - Interconnection Rules
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/501.
=====================================
One other thought regarding confidentiality:
In view of our argument for transparency, assuming full tranparency in the
distribution system planning process, the utility may also have information
provided by retail customers that may also be confidential for the same
reasons given below. We certainly would not want the utilities to be
permitted to not have to provide that info to us, but I would assume we would
honor the confidentiality of that info in the same manner we are asking the
utilities. Does this make Any comments.
(I bring this up only to the extent that on the settlement conference call
the other day the woman from PG&E mentioned confidentiality of info in
passing comment regarding transparency). Any other thoughts?
---------------------- Forwarded by Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES on 04/20/2000 03:43
PM ---------------------------
Tom Hoatson
04/20/2000 03:20 PM
To: Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Robert Frank/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Siting Committee Hearing - Interconnection Rules
I will most likely not be able to attend. However, my comment relating to
this issue was a generalization of confidentiality clauses I've used on other
interconnect agreements and other contracts, including the "model"
interconnection agreement recently submitted to FERC by EPSA. In essence,
the issue is that the utility should not have the unilateral right to
disclose any information to anyone they want that is sent to them in
connection with a DG interconnection. This would include ownership, facility
output, markets for energy or capacity or ancillary sevices (if any) and
maintenance schedules (these schedules may be coincident with a retail
customer's facility maintenance schedule which itself may be confidential
information between the generator and retail customer). This information is
potentially competitive and should be held confidential. Potential wording
for a simplified confidentiality section would be as follows:
"Unless compelled to disclose by judicial or administrative process or other
provisions of law or as otherwise provided for in this Rule, the Electic
Provider shall hold in confidence any and all documents and information
furnished by the Electric Customer in connection with the interconnection,
provide however, that to the extent it is necessary for the the EP to release
or disclose such information to a third party in order to perform the EP's
obligation herein, EP shall advise said third party of the confidential
provisons of this Rule and use its best efforts to require said third party
to agree in writing to comply with such provisions."
Bruno Gaillard
04/20/2000 11:47 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES, Robert
Frank/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Siting Committee Hearing - Interconnection Rules
Scott Tomashefsky is asking me to present our position on the confidentiality
clause in Rule 21 at the CEC Hearing on 4/25. Any thoughts. I hope to be able
to respond to him today.
Should an Enron rep be present to do so? Me or another?
Bob are you coming to Sacramento?
---------------------- Forwarded by Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES on 04/20/2000
09:41 AM ---------------------------
"Scott Tomashefsky" <[email protected]> on 04/20/2000 07:26:24 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Siting Committee Hearing
Bruno,
I was wondering if you would be willing to speak for 5-10 minutes on Tuesday
regarding Section 2.7 of the proposed Rule 21 language (confidentiality of
information)? I was hoping you could convey your concerns for the Committee.
We have also added language in the report stating the Energy Commission has
previously urged positions similar to Enron's at the CPUC, but the CPUC has
not accepted them.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience.
Scott
=====================================
|
4,081 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1693.
=====================================
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 November 15, 2000
_________________________________________________________
Cal-ISO Declares Stage 2 Emergency; Directs SCE to Begin 'Load' Curtailment=
=20
Program for Certain Customers
ROSEMEAD, Calif., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation -
With the state's power reserves
at less than 5%, the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) has
declared a "Stage 2 Emergency" and called upon Southern California Edison a=
nd
other investor-owned utilities to begin voluntary "load" curtailment progra=
ms
for certain customers within their service areas.
Cal-ISO attributed the Stage 2 emergency to a generation shortfall
partially attributable to several power plants in the California market bei=
ng
down for scheduled maintenance.
At the same time, Cal-ISO and SCE are making urgent appeals for all
customers to immediately reduce their electricity consumption.
Cal-ISO, the nonprofit agency that manages 75% of California's
transmission power grid and secures power supplies for most of the state's
consumers, said the Stage 2 status would be in effect from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p=
.m.
The agency directed SCE to reduce its electrical load by 1,000 megawatts --
enough power to serve approximately a million homes.
To achieve this load reduction during Stage 2, SCE is required to activate
its voluntary load curtailment program, under which large industrial,
commercial, and agricultural customers who have agreed to have their power
temporarily interrupted in exchange for reduced rates.
Should the situation worsen for any reason, and power reserves drop below
1.5%, Cal-ISO will declare a Stage 3 Emergency, the most critical status.
Cal-ISO would direct utilities to "drop load," necessitating involuntary
rotating outages for blocks of customers across their service areas until
sufficient reserve levels are achieved.
Large energy users, such as industrial and commercial customers, can help
the power-supply situation by turning off unneeded lights and auxiliary or
redundant machinery where ever possible. The best ways to reduce power
consumption at home are to turn off any unneeded electrical appliances and
lights.
An Edison International company, Southern California Edison is one of the
nation's largest electric utilities, serving a population of more than
11 million via 4.3 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile servic=
e
area within central, coastal and Southern California.
SOURCE Southern California Edison
CONTACT: Corporate Communications of Southern California Edison,
626-302-2255
Web site: http://www.sce.com
Web site: http://www.edisonnews.com
(EIX)
_________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
4,082 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #35
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28756.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW071601.pdf>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 1.9% Last week our IPP composite fell 1.9%, underperforming
both the NASDAQ (+4.0%) and the S&P 500 (+2.1%). Calpine was the strongest
performer in the group, rising 4.5%. AES was the weakest performer, falling
9.5%.
2. 4 Items to Focus On In our view, there were four items worth focusing
on from last week: 1.) AES fell 10% owing to Latin American concerns. We
see downside to our 2001 estimate; 2.) The FERC settlement conference
adjourned on July 9. On July 12, the presiding ALJ issued a recommendation
favorable to generators; 3.) On July 12, the US bankruptcy court approved
Calpine's settlement with PG&E; and, 4.) On July 10, NRG Energy announced it
would acquire a 2,255 MW portfolio from Indeck.
3. Latin America Pressuring AES Earnings The likelihood of downside to our
2001 EPS estimate for AES. Corp. of $1.89 has increased materially. We
believe the ongoing currency weakness combined with power rationing have the
potential to negatively impact 2001 EPS by $0.25-$0.30 versus prior
expectations-on a stand-alone basis. While management indicated in mid-May
that it could offset weakness in Brazil, the currency has materially
depreciated since that time and shows no signs of improvement in the
near-term. AES's second quarter earnings conference call will take place on
July 26. Following the call, we will adjust our 2001 estimate accordingly,
unless management indicates that it remains positioned to offset these items
through upside in other parts of its business.
4. FERC ALJ Issues Report On Thursday (7/12), Curtis Wagner, the
Administrative Law Judge who presided over the recent settlement conference,
issued a report presenting his findings and recommendations for next steps.
Overall, the report was very much consistent with our expectations. While
Wagner notes that some refunds are due from the generators, he argues that
the $8.9 billion demanded by the State of California "cannot be
substantiated." We believe Calpine and Mirant offer the greatest downside
protection from this issue.
5. CSFB Power Generation Supply Chain Conference On September 10 and 11,
CSFB will host a Power Generation Supply Chain Conference at the Plaza Hotel
in New York City. This event is designed to provide investors with a
wholistic perspective on all aspects of the sector-from coal and natural gas
companies, to equipment and construction service providers, to the power
producers themselves. Please contact us if you would like additional
information.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
Bryan Sifert 212/325-3906
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
- IPW071601.pdf
=====================================
|
4,083 |
Subject: FW: Demand Bidding Legislation (what used to be AB31X- Wright)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4725.
=====================================
Here is a note from Mike Florio of the ISO Board. This is encouraging, he
wants to talk further about how the ISO programs can be changed to
accomplish what we want. What would be most helpful is an item by item
analysis by EES (read: Harry and his people) as to why the existing or
proposed ISO programs are inadequate (or why we need to have 31X amended to
have the ISO do programs for direct access customers parallel to the utility
programs in 31X.) I need this information soon in order to keep the
dialogue going with Florio. Thanks for your help. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Florio [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:51 PM
To: MDay
Subject: Re: Demand Bidding Legislation (what used to be AB31X- Wright)
Just to show how up to speed I am, I thought that the ISO was already
planning to do this. Their presentation on demand programs at the last
board meeting showed a scheduling coordinator option and a UDC option, with
different billing and settlement provisions for each. But it's hard for me
to judge what is adequate (and user-friendly) and what is not absent some
expert help. I'm definitely interested in the concept and have no great
faith in utility management of programs of this nature. Let's pursue.
MIKE
P.S. In his own inimitable way, Dan Richard "offered" me the ORA job way
back when. I said: "Gee, Dan, I thought we were friends!" When he acted
all surprised and hurt in that way of his, I reminded him that Marty Lyons
and Mark Loy come with the turf. End of discussion.
At 05:05 PM 3/21/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Mike:
>
>I wanted your reaction to a proposal we were making in response to the
>Wright 31X bill on demand bidding programs. We strongly support these
>programs, and feel that ESPs can bring a lot of benefit to the program by
>aggregaring customers, educating them on the benefits of bidding
"Negawatts"
>and helping to meter and verify their load reductions. We are certain that
>we could help enroll more customers in the program than if the utilities
>alone were in charge. So, we proposed language for 31X which allowed ESPs
>to aggregate customers in the utility day ahead and hour ahead programs,
and
>proposed an additional day ahead program based on economic value, (not
>reliability criteria, like reserve margins).
>
>The utilities and the large customers wanted to clarify that we would not
>include direct access customers in the utility programs, because of the odd
>funding source (reductions from the amounts paid to DWR). We agreed with
>the concept, we don't want to fund demand reduction programs for Direct
>Access customers through DWR payments, but we also feel strongly that there
>should be similar non-discriminatory demand reduction programs for all
types
>of customers, including DA. So we came up with the idea of inserting
>language in the bill to require the ISO to institute demand bidding
programs
>which match the ones mandated in the bill for the IOUs. I gave our
>suggestion to Robin Larson, and I don't imagine you've seen it yet, but
>would you give me your reaction to the basic concept? I looked at the ISO
>website and tried to evaluate the demand bidding programs already in
>place--with a limited amount of understanding, but Enron's business folks
>indicated that they did not consider the existing programs to be the
>equivalent of what the utilities will be implementing. If that is so, how
>about putting similar programs in place so we can actively market and
>encourage all customers to bid their negawatts (especially the economic,
bid
>and contract in advance deals) so that the ISO can count on the demand
>reductions in advance of a day's operations?
>
>I await your response.
>
>I am so sorry you are not the next ORA director, I was certain you would be
>appointed to that, too. (gallows humor)
>
>Mike Day
=====================================
|
4,084 |
Subject: SoCal's Announced Intrastate Gas Expansions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10504.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/30/2001 10:54 AM -----
SoCalGas to Make System Enhancements
Southern California Gas Co. confirmed plans to expand its intrastate gas
transportation system and make enhancements to its storage facilities to help
meet record-setting gas demand by electric generators in Southern California.
SoCalGas Chairman Edwin A. Guiles informed California Public Utilities
Commission President Loretta Lynch of the plans in a March 27 letter.
He said the company had begun modifications to its system that will allow it
to deliver an additional 175 MMcf/d by year end. SoCal's Lad Lorenz told NGI
last week the company was planning to increase receipt point capacity at
Wheeler Ridge where it interconnects with Kern River and Mojave, at the
Needles compressor station where it interconnects with Transwestern Pipeline
and at a receipt point for in-state production in the San Joaquin Valley (see
Daily GPI, March 23
<http://intelligencepress.com/subscribers/daily/news/d20010323g.html>). The
Topock, AZ, border delivery point, which saw the sharpest price increases
this winter, was not among the points slated for expansion because of the
cost of expanding there. The company plans to add 85 MMcf/d of capacity at
Wheeler Ridge, 50 MMcf/d at Needles and 40 MMcf/d for in-state production.
"We are taking immediate action to increase compression horsepower at three
delivery stations to boost the amount of natural gas that can be transported
into The Gas Company's intrastate pipeline system," said Guiles. "In light of
the uncertainties surrounding future demand for natural gas on The Gas
Company's system, these modifications are the least cost way that we can be
assured of meeting the gas demands of all of our customers and avoid any
possibility for curtailments of service." Guiles said the proposed 5%
increase in capacity would be enough to serve another 1.3 million residential
customers per day or to power 1,200 MW of new baseload electric generation.
"The improvements are consistent with SoCalGas' goals of maintaining as much
as 20% more capacity than our requirements for periods of normal demand," he
said.
SoCalGas also is proposing some adjustments to its gas storage operations
that will help increase the in-state supply of natural gas by 24 Bcf - or
enough gas to serve a half million residential customers for one year - over
the next year. It already has on file at the CPUC plans to abandon the
Montebello storage field in Los Angeles County and withdraw the 10-12 Bcf of
base and working gas that remains in the field. In addition, the company is
planning to drill several new wells at its Aliso Canyon and La Goleta storage
fields in order to remove 14 Bcf of base gas, split evenly between the two
fields, and sell it into the market. The reduction in base gas is expected to
have no impact on the amount of working gas capacity available in each field.
Because of strong gas demand last summer, the levels of natural gas at the
company's underground storage reservoirs reached near historic lows this
winter. The LDC is encouraging non-core shippers to get a head start on
storage injections this year because it expects demand to remain strong in
2001.
"Our goal for this year is to have no curtailments of gas service to our
customers, but we need to maximize the use of our existing intrastate
capacity in order to reach our goal," said Guiles. "We're telling our large
industrial and electric generation customers that the best way that they can
avoid curtailments next winter is to make full use of the available pipeline
space and put natural gas in storage whenever possible, particularly during
the second quarter of this year.
"I believe that, if undertaken, these proposals will have a positive impact
on reliability next winter," said Guiles.
=====================================
|
4,085 |
Subject: LA Times Op-Ed Column - Think You May Enjoy This !
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13448.
=====================================
?
'Hi, My Name Isn't Justice, Honey,' and Shame on Lockyer
By TOM G. PALMER
?????Here's what California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said at a press
conference about Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay: "I would love to
personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed
dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey."'
?????Here's why Lockyer should be removed from his office of public trust:
First, because as the chief law enforcement officer of the largest state in
the nation, he not only has admitted that rape is a regular feature of the
state's prison system, but also that he considers rape a part of the
punishment he can inflict on others.
?????Second, because he has publicly stated that he would like to personally
arrange the rape of a Texas businessman who has not even been charged with
any illegal behavior.
?????Lockyer's remarks reveal him to be an authoritarian thug, someone
wholly unsuited to holding an office of public trust.
?????But his remarks do have one positive merit: They tell us what criminal
penalties really entail.
?????Contrary to some depictions of prisons as country clubs, they are
violent and terrible places. More and more politicians propose criminal
sanctions for more and more alleged misdeeds, and as a result ever more
kinds of behavior are sanctioned by criminal penalties, perhaps now even
selling electricity. Those found guilty of such crimes are put into cages,
where they are deprived of their liberty and dignity and, as Lockyer so
clearly acknowledged, raped and brutalized. What's worse, Lockyer has
indicated that he believes that rape is an appropriate part of the system of
punishments he administers.
?????Should it matter that Lay is a businessman? Imagine the outcry if the
head of Enron were female. What would Lockyer's fellow Democrats have said
to that?
?????Should it matter that Lay is chairman of an electricity generator? Does
the nature of his business justify threats to escort him to his own rape?
Lockyer told the Los Angeles Times that he had singled out Enron's chairman
because the Houston-based company is the world's largest energy trader.
?????So apparently singling out a man for a heinous threat is OK because
he's the chairman of the world's largest energy trading company. That's
according to the man who, as a state senator, sponsored California's 1984
hate-crimes law. Evidently the crusader against intimidation on the basis of
race, religion and sexual orientation feels no hesitation at all about
intimidating someone and threatening him with the brutal use of physical
force simply because he heads the world's largest energy trading company.
?????Lockyer and Gov. Gray Davis seem to think that the best way to keep the
lights on is to threaten electricity producers with brute force, rather than
to offer to pay competitive rates in competitive markets. Are energy
producers to blame for California's energy problems? No. Bad policies,
including rigid controls on retail prices of electricity, are the cause of
the problem, not the people who generate energy. Scapegoating producers and
threatening them with violence is an old ploy of authoritarians.
Californians should not stand for it.
?????An Enron spokesman said that Lockyer's chilling stated desire to
arrange the rape of Lay does not merit a response. The spokesman is wrong.
Lockyer's remarks merit public disgrace and removal from office. After all,
rape is not a form of legal justice in America--is it?
- - -
Tom G. Palmer Is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.
E-mail: [email protected]
How was that for a well-written editorial?
?
Dan Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
(818) 596-2201
[email protected]
?
- Blank Bkgrd.gif
=====================================
|
4,086 |
Subject: RE: California Update--10.02.01: PUC Turns Down Davis' Proposed
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/435.
=====================================
What have you done with Loretta?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:45 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa
Subject: California Update--10.02.01: PUC Turns Down Davis' Proposed Rate Agreement with DWR
In what will likely be viewed as a fairly shocking event, the California PUC today voted down Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC.
The vote was 4-1, with the two Republicans voting with Davis' hand-picked appointees Lynch and Wood.
Davis' proposal was introduced at the meeting by another Davis appointee--Geoff Brown--who made a lengthy speech about why California would experience economic and political destruction if the PUC did not approve Davis' proposed rate agreement.
What is Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC?
It would remove all PUC authority to review any contracts between DWR with suppliers.
It would require the PUC to pass through to utility rates all DWR power contract costs, no questions asked.
What are the implications of the move by the PUC to reject Davis' proposal?
With the vote, it remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the DWR power contracts.
The political pressure to re-negotiate--or break--the DWR power contracts is likely to intensify considerably.
It remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the $12.5 B in bonds the Treasurer has unsuccessfully attempted to issue for past several months.
Under the structure devised by Davis, the revenues flowing from the CPUC/DWR rate agreement would be used to both 1) pay for the DWR power contracts and 2) service the bonds the Treasurer is trying to issue to repay California's General Fund for spot and other short term power purchased by DWR since January.
In short, there is no clear indication of how California will pay for DWR contracts or issue the bonds.
Safe to say that today's PUC vote has seriously embarrassed Davis, and left his approach to "solving" California electricity crisis in shambles.
What Next?
A broad left-right coalition of energy interests supported a bill (18XX) that passed the Legislature with broad bi-partisan support.
The bill would create a "dedicated rate component" on every customers bill to service the $12.5 B in bonds that the Treasurer wants to issue.
Proponents of the bill--and just about everyone else--argue that the "dedicated rate component" is a signficantly more efficient way to raise the debt California needs to plug the hole in its budget.
The bill is silent, however, on how California would pay for the DWR contracts, and the bill's opponents claim that the power suppliers will sue as a result.
All four PUC commissioners who voted against the Davis rate agreement today urged Davis to sign the bill. The left-right coalition (from Nader types to oil companies) is also working hard to get Davis to sign it.
Davis has said that he will veto the bill on the advice of the Treasurer and bond counsel.
Given today's vote, however, Davis may have no alternative than to sign the bill if he wants to get the bonds issued and the state budget repaid.
Update on Edison Bailout
Still appears that chances are very small that Edison and Davis will succeed in getting the Legislature to vote for an Edison bailout when it returns for another "special" session next Tuesday.
If you have any questions, just let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,087 |
Subject: California Legislative Strategy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES', '[email protected]', 'Thomas E White/HOU/EES@EES']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/942.
=====================================
I understand that the following message was forwarded by Marty to Rick
Shapiro. Just wanted to give you a heads up.
Roger
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Yang/SFO/EES on 08/31/2000 12:38 PM
---------------------------
Enron Energy Services
From: Dennis Benevides 08/30/2000 10:28 PM
Phone No: 713 853-9609
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Thomas E White/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: California Legislative Strategy
FYI. Status on potential California Legislation & potential book impact as
of two days ago (prices have declined substantially over the past two days.)
---------------------- Forwarded by Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES on 08/30/2000
10:22 PM ---------------------------
Roger Yang
08/30/2000 03:27 PM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Kenneth Lee/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: California Legislative Strategy
Per our discussions yesterday, SCE and PG&E are currently negotiating with
customer groups to propose legislation that would result in a Rate
Stabilization Plan that would extend beyond the AB1890 rate freeze. The
purpose of the negotiations is to build inertia to move a bill at the
legislature. The legislative session ends this week and will not reconvene
until next year, unless there is a special legislative session. I hear from
Government Affairs that the current negotiations has stalled.
Unfortunately, customer groups would not know a good deal if it hit them in
the face.
SCE and PG&E threaten to artificially end the AB1890 rate freeze early and
forego CTC recovery. The utilities would end the freeze as early as January
1, 2001, in lieu of incurring high procurement costs that would undue their
CTC recovery thus far. Under the AB1890 freeze, the utilities are at risk
for recovery of all costs under the frozen rates through March 31, 2002.
There are two things that would prevent the utilities from ending the freeze
early. Under the current political and market climate, artificially ending
the rate freeze early would be perceived very poorly. Additionally, the
utilities would have to forego recovery of hundreds of millions to a billion
dollars for CTC, Transmission, Distribution and Procurement undercollections
(in the TRA and TCBA) per a prior CPUC decision. It would be in the best
interest of the utilities and customers to negotiate other mechanisms such as
an extension to the AB890 rate freeze. One concept that has been discussed
is an extension to January 1, 2005.
The following is an assessment of our risks:
January 1, 2001Roll-Off Current Mark January 1, 2005 Roll-Off
PG&E ($57.8) million July 1, 2001 $155.9 million
SCE ($85.6) million January 1, 2002 $21.4 million
________ ___________________ ___________ ___________________
Total ($143.4) million $177.3 million
I have instructed Government Affairs to accept a deal that would extend the
AB1890 Rate Freeze to January 1, 2005. Government Affairs understands the
value of an extension of the Rate Freeze between April 1, 2002 and January 1,
2005, and our preference that the Rate Freeze in 2003. Also, Government
Affairs understands are preference for a Rate Cap. Unfortunately, the
utilities are not interested in our preferences due to their own needs. I
offered Government Affairs some other refinements to such a settlement,
including: 1) the PX credit be based on spot prices; 2) a retail adder to
the PX credit; 3) no wholesale caps; and 4) the January 1, 2005 is a "no
later than" date (which would make it more generic to cover all utilities
with different circumstances). Of course, none of these amendments should be
deal breakers. Once again, a settlement with correponding legislation does
not look promising at this point in time.
Roger
=====================================
|
4,088 |
Subject: State reviews draft plan to prohibit energy exports
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9949.
=====================================
This article has the angle I spoke of on yesterday's call ...
State reviews draft plan to prohibit energy exports
Published Sunday, March 11, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
BY STEVE JOHNSON
Mercury News
To the concern of some of its neighbors, California appears to be getting
more serious about the idea of banning its electricity generators from
selling to other states on days when power supplies here are critically short.
A draft proposal to prohibit such exports was circulated late last week by
the California Independent System Operator, which oversees most of the
state's power grid. Although officials there could not be reached for
comment, the proposal said the agency plans to seek approval for the ban from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which supervises power wholesalers.
The proposal would require California generators ``to make full capacity
available'' to this state when electricity reserves dip below 7 percent, a
condition that results in a Stage 1 emergency. Rolling blackouts can result
after a Stage 3 emergency, when reserves fall below 1.5 percent.
Gov. Gray Davis and other California officials have been mulling over the
idea of such a ban for months. They are concerned about California's power
being shipped elsewhere, particularly when the state is scrambling to find
enough electricity to keep the lights on.
A Mercury News analysis in December found that thousands of
California-generated megawatts -- enough to supply several million homes --
were routinely being sold to other states during hours when power here was
critically short.
In addition, the draft proposal said banning exports could help prevent
generators from engaging in ``megawatt laundering,'' in which they
artificially inflate the price of their power by selling it out of state to
an affiliate or an associate and then back into California just before it is
needed. While in-state power suppliers are somewhat limited in what they can
charge, no such constraints apply to power sold into California during
electrical emergencies.
But because California is highly dependent on electricity imports, some
experts fear that banning energy exports could backfire. They said other
states that periodically rely on power from California might retaliate by
barring their generators from selling power to the state.
``Steps that would essentially Balkanize the intertie could be
counterproductive,'' said David Danner, energy policy adviser to Washington
Gov. Gary Locke, in reference to the major high-voltage line known as the
intertie that links California to the Pacific Northwest.
Danner praised Davis' recent efforts to solve California's energy problems.
Even so, he said, any restriction on the flow of electricity could provoke
anger in Washington state, where record-low rainfall has hurt the ability of
the region's hydroelectric dams to make power and where some residents have
seen their utility bills soar.
``I get calls every day from people . . . who say, `Why should I sit in the
dark when all the power gets shipped to California?' '' said Danner, noting
that Washington residents have been asked to drastically cut back on their
electricity this year. ``There is some resentment.''
Roy Hemmingway, an energy specialist in the office of Oregon Gov. John
Kitzhaber, expressed concern that the proposed ban would hinder what he
called ``the mutually advantageous exchange of power between the Pacific
Northwest and California.
``We in Oregon are pretty sympathetic to the extremely difficult situation
that California is facing,'' he said. Even so, he added, ``I am hoping this
proposal would have some flexibility in it.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Contact Steve Johnson at [email protected] or (408) 920-5043.
# # #
=====================================
|
4,089 |
Subject: FW: Confirmation Letter *-VPKQBE-*
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8808.
=====================================
Prentice told me last night that you were very busy, so I took care of
making the reservation on Alaska Airlines and paying for the fare. When you
get a chance, just send me the $545 minus my share of the rental car we
picked up at Burbank and anything else we might owe. When are we going out
for a practice round?
-----Original Message-----
From: Alaska Airlines [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Confirmation Letter *-VPKQBE-*
Thank you for choosing Alaska Airlines / Horizon Air!
Questions? This is an auto-generated email. If you have any questions,
simply call 1-800-ALASKAAIR (1-800-252-7522) for Alaska Airlines, or
1-800-547-9308 for Horizon Air.
Confirmation Code: VPK QBE
Name Ticket Number Base / Tax / Total
DASOVICH/JEFFREY MR 0272135010686 $470.00 / 75.05 / 545.05
Seats: 23C, 27B, 11D
SELLERS/PRENTICE MS 0272135010687 $470.00 / 75.05 / 545.05
Seats: 24C, 27C, 11F
ITINERARY
March 26, 2001
Alaska Airlines #262
Depart: San Francisco, CA at 8:00 AM
Arrive: Mazatlan, Mexico at 1:47 PM
April 01, 2001
Alaska Airlines #211
Depart: Mazatlan, Mexico at 2:27 PM
Arrive: Los Angeles, CA at 4:13 PM
April 01, 2001
Alaska Airlines #291
Depart: Los Angeles, CA at 7:34 PM
Arrive: San Francisco, CA at 8:48 PM
REMINDERS AND RESTRICTIONS
This electronic ticket is not transferable. This ticket is valid for travel
on Alaska Airlines flights 1 - 799 and/or Horizon Air flights 2000 - 2999
and is non-refundable. If you choose to change your itinerary, any fare
increases and a change fee will be collected at that time.
PAYMENT INFORMATION
A total of US$1090.10 was charged to the American Express xxxxxxxxxxx4003
held by ELDON SELLERS on 02/01/01. This document is your receipt.
BAGGAGE
On Alaska Airlines there is a limit of two carry-on items per passenger
which includes purses, briefcases and laptop computers. Each of these items
must measure less than 9" high, 14" wide and 22" long. Please stow items
under the seat in front of you and save the shared overhead compartment for
smaller items.
AT THE AIRPORT
When you arrive at the airport, you may check in at an Instant Travel
Machine, the ticket counter or gate to receive your boarding pass. Baggage
may be checked at the ticket counter, or, where available, via an Instant
Travel Machine or at curbside. Please have this document or your
confirmation code available. Check in at an Instant Travel Machine and we
will add 500 bonus miles to your Alaska Airlines' Mileage Plan account.
It's fast and easy! For locations and to learn more visit
http://www2.alaskaair.com/it/IT.asp.
Reserved seats will be held for you until 20 minutes before departure time
(40 minutes for international flights). To accommodate everyone wishing to
travel on your flight, you must be in your confirmed seat at least 10
minutes before scheduled departure (30 minutes for international flights).
This will ensure that your reservations are not canceled.
Picture identification, such as a drivers license or passport, is required
to board the aircraft. For Canada and Mexico, proof of citizenship is
required.
CHANGE OF PLANS
We're available 24 hours a day to assist you; simply give us a call at
1-800-ALASKAAIR (1-800-252-7522) for Alaska Airlines or at 1-800-547-9308
for Horizon Air. (If calling from Mexico, precede these telephone numbers
with 001.) For all changes please refer to your confirmation code.
Refunds for qualifying tickets may be obtained by calling the appropriate
toll-free number listed above or by applying at any ticket counter location.
Please review U.S. Department of Transportation Consumer Notices regarding
your consumer rights and limitations of liability at:
http://www2.alaskaair.com/help/faqs/ConsumerNotices.asp or simply obtain a
copy when checking in.
=====================================
|
4,090 |
Subject: ATTENTION- Electricity Oversight Board (EOB) Further Subpoena
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4332.
=====================================
I'm forwarding a notice from the California ISO, telling us it will be
responding to a very broad Subpoena from the Electricity Oversight Board
(EOB). Many of the questions relate to the period of from September 2000
through November 2000. The ISO indicates that it will be answering the
requests because the EOB has granted what it believes is an adequate
protective order. This order agrees to keep the answers to certain questions
confidential, but to provide them to the CPUC and the AG if they agree to
keep them confidential. If we have concerns about the confidential order we
are supposed to advise the ISO by Monday 12/1, at 9:00 a.m. The subpoeana,
and confidential order, and a letter explaining the treatment of the various
requests are attached.
I am assuming that because the order appears to protect our commercial
interests, we will not protest this. Richard - let me know if you want to
have a conference call on this and I'll have Lysa set one up.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 08:33 AM
---------------------------
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Woertz, Byron" <[email protected]>
12/05/2000 05:34 PM
To: ISO Market Participants
<IMCEAEX-_O=CAISO_OU=CORPORATE_CN=DISTRIBUTION+20LISTS_CN=ISO+20MARKET+20PARTI
[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice - Electricity Oversight Board (EOB) Further Subpoena
ISO Market Participants and Scheduling Coordinators:
The Electricity Oversight Board ("EOB") has issued a further
subpoena to the ISO in the context of its ongoing investigation of
California's electricity grid and markets during and subsequent to the
Summer 2000. The subpoena seeks information that is confidential under ISO
Tariff Section 20.3.2. This notice is provided in accordance with Tariff
Section 20.3.4 and includes the subpoena as an attachment.
The EOB has issued three letters in which it sets forth the
confidential treatment it will afford confidential information produced by
the ISO including:
* an initial letter dated July 20 which addresses data subject to ISO
Tariff Section 20.3.;
* a letter dated July 28 which addresses additional data; and
* a letter dated October 3 which clarifies that the confidential
treatment set forth in the July 20 and 28 letters will be applied by the EOB
on an ongoing basis in its investigation of the electricity markets.
The three letters are attached to this notice.
The ISO will mark as confidential documents it produces to
the EOB that contain information subject to 20.3.2. It is the ISO's
understanding that the confidential treatment provided by the EOB to
information subject to 20.3.2 is satisfactory to Market Participants. The
ISO intends to comply with the EOB subpoena in a timely manner on December
18. If a Market Participant requires any further confidentiality protection,
the ISO expects such Market Participant to take timely action to obtain
directly from the EOB such further protection so that production by the ISO
is not delayed. The ISO would appreciate being notified of any such action
and its resolution so that it can comply with its responsibilities as set
forth in ISO Tariff section 20.3.
The EOB contact related to the subpoena is Eric Saltmarsh
who can be reached at (916) 322-8601.
Any concerns relating to the EOB's subpoena should be
communicated by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, December 11th, to Jeanne Sol, at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]@caiso.com> , and copied to
Charlie Robinson at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> and
Norma Formanek at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .
Jeanne M. Sol,
Regulatory Counsel
California ISO
(916) 608-7144
<<7-21EOB4.pdf>> <<Confiden.pdf>> <<EOBoard0.pdf>>
<<EOBoard1.pdf>>
- 7-21EOB4.pdf
- Confiden.pdf
- EOBoard0.pdf
- EOBoard1.pdf
=====================================
|
4,091 |
Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Curtis', '[email protected]', 'Michele; Kaufman', 'Paul; Shapiro', 'Richard; McCubbin', 'Sandra;']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3189.
=====================================
Kari Dohn. 916.324.3501.
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
02/12/2001 04:02 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Thanks Jeff - do you have Kari's contact information?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES On Behalf Of Jeff
Dasovich/Na/Enron@EES
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:09 PM
To: Riley, Tom
Cc: Curtis, Michele; Kaufman,Paul; Shapiro,Richard; McCubbin,Sandra;
Mara,Susan
Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
I think that it would be best for the Chancellor's office to make the
contact/request, but if you need us to help, then Steve Kean, Rick Shapiro or
I can make a go of it; but again, I think that it would best for the
Chancellor's office to make the invite.
Best,
Jeff
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange 02/12/2001 02:58 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES cc: Michele Curtis/Western Region/The
Bentley Company@Exchange, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Jeff,
Thank you - Kari certainly seems to be an ideal candidate. Who would the
appropriate person be from Enron to initiate contact with Kari regarding the
request? Once initial contact is made, I can follow up with details.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES On Behalf Of Jeff
Dasovich/Na/Enron@EES
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:26 AM
To: Riley, Tom
Cc: Curtis, Michele; McCubbin,Sandra; Mara,Susan; Shapiro,Richard;
Mara,Susan; Kaufman,Paul
Subject: Re: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Hi Tom:
From our contact with the Governor's office, seems that Kari Dohn, formerly
in the Governor's office, and recently appointed Chair of the Electricity
Oversight Board, would be the hands-down best candidate.
Best,
Jeff
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange 02/12/2001 01:02 PM
To: Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan
J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Michele Curtis/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange Subject: FW: Top Level Energy Person
If any of you have ideas on this, please respond ASAP. As you may know, I
sit on the CSU Foundation Board of Governors, accountable to Chancellor
Reed. Anything we can do to support the upcoming meeting will go a long way.
Regards, Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: "Patricia Linn" <[email protected]>@ENRON@EES
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:13 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Top Level Energy Person
Importance: High
Greetings Tom, in preparation for our upcoming Board of Governors' meeting,
I would like to ask you for your help in getting a speaker for the evening.
The March 11 (Sunday) Board meeting in Sacramento is focused around CSU
Legislative Day scheduled for Monday, March 12. The Board meeting is
scheduled to begin at 4:00 pm followed by a dinner. We will invite the CSU
Trustees to attend the dinner along with other key CSU leaders; we normally
have about 30-40 individuals attend the dinner.
This year, we would like to invite someone from the Governor's office to
come and talk a little about the energy crises in California. Can you help
us identify someone in Davis' administration that may be interested in
speaking to this distinguished group of individuals?
Again, briefly,
Meeting date/time: Sunday, March 11, 2001 at 4:00 pm; dinner is scheduled
for 6:45pm; in Sacramento.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Patricia Castillo Linn, CFRE
Senior Director, Advancement Programs
and Vice President, CSU Foundation
The California State University
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore, 6th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802-4210
562/951-4821
562/951-4983 FAX
- winmail.dat << File: winmail.dat >>
=====================================
|
4,092 |
Subject: Re: Daily Update/Information on CA Legislative Activity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/38.
=====================================
Bruno --
We should contact Mike Day as soon as possible and have him prepared to dra=
ft=20
legislative fixes for any bill that would come out looking like the Wood=20
Draft Decision consistent with the issues you outlined below. I want to ma=
ke=20
sure that we are prepared for this possibility. =20
FYI, given the information I have, the Wood Draft Decision is more favorabl=
e=20
for Enron's attempt at becoming the wholesale supplier to SDG&E. It looks=
=20
pretty tough to beat the Duque Decision.
Jim
Bruno Gaillard
08/22/2000 09:02 PM
To: Edward Hamb/HOU/EES@EES, Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Chris=20
Hendrix/HOU/EES@EES, Greg Cordell/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EE=
S,=20
Martin Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Condon/SFO/EES@EES, James M=20
Wood/HOU/EES@EES, Gary Mirich/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES,=20
Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, David Parquet@ECT, [email protected], SF Directors, Pa=
ul=20
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Marcie Milner/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Hain@Enron, Harry=
=20
Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Richard=20
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Karen Denne@Enron, Mark=20
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: =20
Subject: Daily Update/Information on CA Legislative Activity =20
The events described below represent what has happened today. The situation=
=20
is in constant flux. However, we need to know our position in case any of t=
he=20
bellow does occurred.
=20
Scott Baugh, Republican Assembly Leader, had a press conference in which th=
e=20
republicans declared that:
They accept Duque's Decision as is.=20
They are going to, request a special legislative session starting September=
1
The legislative session is going to look into supplementing focusing on=20
granting the Governor emergency power for supply side issues and streamlini=
ng=20
sitting. Furthermore, they will propose to provide relief in addition to=20
Duque's decision, by providing an extra $300 MM, retroactive to June 1,=20
2000, to schools, hospitals and local government in the form of a tax cred=
it=20
or cut and from the general fund. =20
They do not support the Davis/Alpert Bill (SDG&E Rate Freeze). (However, th=
e=20
San Diego Republicans will probably vote for it).
This also seems to take some wind out of the Pescetti bill (Freeze Extensio=
n).
This seems to be a political play. We do not believe that the republicans=
=20
think that the Governor will actually declare a special session. The Alpert=
=20
bill will most likely be heard tomorrow. We do not know in which form and=
=20
whether or not it will be amended.
There also is a current rumor that a new bill may be introduce that would p=
ut=20
the Wood Draft Decision into a bill. Our comments on the Wood decision focu=
s=20
mostly on the recovery mechanism, limiting the application of the cap to=20
bundled customerrs, and insuring that only those that benefited from the ca=
p=20
paid for the costs associated with the cap.
Attached is a brief summary of Woods proposal.
caps the energy component of bills for residential, small commercial and=20
street lighting customers at 6.5 cents/kwh
creates a balancing account to ensure that SDG&E is "made whole"
uses all revenues generated by SDG&E-owned or managed assets (e.g. qualifyi=
ng=20
facilities, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, bilateral and interutili=
ty=20
contracts) to finance the cap (large customers likely to feel cheated by th=
is=20
provision)
offers large customers a voluntary "bill smoothing" option (but no caps)
states that purchases made by SDG&E from the PX are no longer per se=20
reasonable and indicates that the Commission will investigate SDG&E=01,s pa=
st=20
procurement practices (seems to counter previous promises of keeping SDG&E=
=20
=01&whole=018)
goes through December 2003
Please provide comments as to our position on Wood's proposal
=====================================
|
4,093 |
Subject: Re:RE: OAT Valuation Model
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4146.
=====================================
Our schedules make it messy. I can come over tomorrow during the break if
Anil and Carolyn want to meet. Mark, if you want to hunker down with the
model tomorrow, you should feel free. The only thing about Thursday is that
Carolyn's got a commitment with Dian. Can we talk about meeting this
weekend? I can be flexible.
Best,
Jeff
"Guinney, Mark" <[email protected]>
04/16/2001 01:31 PM
To: "\"Anil Sama\" " <[email protected]>, "\"Vavrek; Carolyn (US - San
Francisco)\" " <[email protected]>, "\"[email protected]\" "
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Re:RE: OAT Valuation Model
Guys,
We are not going to be able to meet during the week since we all have class
every day of the week. We'll have to talk on Thursday and again Sat. or
Sun.
Come prepared so we can be efficient.
Later
**********************************************
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: OAT Valuation Model
Author: "Anil Sama" <SMTP:[email protected]>
Date: 04/16/2001 5:24 PM
Nice job Jeff!
I can meet Tuesday evening, Sat PM, or Sunday.
-Anil
"Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff - Thanks for putting so much work into this. Excellent job!
I agree that we should figure out when we can meet again. I can meet
tonight, during break on Tuesday and basically anytime on Saturday or
Sunday. During break on Thursday I volunteered to help Diane with a new
student's reception, but I can cancel that if need be. What does everyone
else's schedule look like?
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:56 AM
To: '[email protected]'; 'Mark Guinney'; Cvavrek
Subject: OAT Valuation Model
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/16/2001 10:53 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff To: "Sama, Anil"
Dasovich cc: "'[email protected]'"
,
[email protected], "'Mark
Guinney'"
04/16/2001 Subject: OAT Valuation
Model(Document link:
10:52 AM Jeff Dasovich)
OK folks. It's about 80% of the way there. My brains are oozing out
looking at cells, so I want to get this around so Mark can get started on
refining assumptions and other folks can examine as well. I'll continue to
check it and de-bug it. Mark, you and I should talk, too. (You'll note
that at this point, the valuation is in the $30s, so there's work to do.)
Apologies in advance for any errors (and I'm sure they're there).
If anyone has any questions on the model, just let me know.
I think we ought to get together to meet this week as much as possible to
start getting the power point presentation together. And perhaps we should
think about meeting this weekend?
In the meantime, I'm pulling together the data on Buffet (Berkshire
Hathaway) stock performance, etc., and will also do the financial ratios,
including Dupont, for OAT.
Does this work for folks? Other thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
(See attached file: OAT Valuation 0416.xls)
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!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address
<http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=mailiyfoot>
- Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
=====================================
|
4,094 |
Subject: California Update 5/17/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12746.
=====================================
California's Finances
The State of California will be walking a fiscal tightrope for a while until
wholesale energy costs come down. At first look, it seems California's
financial position seems OK in the short term; however, the picture remains
troublesome in the medium term. For one thing, instead of the bridge loans,
the state can and probably will resort to Revenue Anticipation Notes, and has
also scheduled a billion dollar G.O. offering for June, which will help with
the cash situation. There are also still substantial borrowable resources
available to the state within its own accounts. However, they would prefer
not to resort to that, as doing so could have further implications for their
bond ratings, but the option is there. Another reason California might be
OK in the short term, is that, everyone except Moody's, had conflated the
money allocated for power purchases, $7.2 billion, with the money actually
spent for power purchases, $4.3 billion. This indicates that even the pure
cash component of the state's general fund has a longer shelf life. So now
the question shifts from a near term liquidity issue to asking how much of an
economic effect will the combination of blackouts and much higher retail
energy prices have on California's already flagging economy, and what will
the knock-on effect of this be on the state budget.
The state is completely assured that the proceeds of the bond offers, and the
use of the rate hikes to service those bonds, are "bankruptcy remote"
vehicles. Second, California legislatures are not concerned by the
possibility of a ballot initiative. Other areas of concern are about the tax
revenues in light of an economic slowdown, as well as the medium-term risk of
high electricity costs for debt service for the next 15 years. This will
exert a sizable drag on California's growth which could itself have budgetary
consequences. This is actually a best case scenario, and it is clear that the
ratepayer has more pain to come, especially if California bails out Edison
and PG&E creditors with a "Plan B."
Legislative Matters
Nine key Democratic members are preparing legislation that would authorize a
buyer's cartel along with Washington state and Oregon state to set a firm
upper limit on what each state will pay for electricity during peak demand
periods. Under this legislation, the state would simply refuse to pay more
than a predetermined price for electricity, no matter what happened. The
Senate is having a hearing on this issues next Tuesday. Davis commented
yesterday that he is in support of this legislation.
As mentioned in Wednesday's report, of the two viable Plan B's, success will
be determined by the following questions: (1) will it trigger a rate-payer
rebellion among California voters?; and (2) will it pass in time for SoCal
Edison to be rescued before bankruptcy? One problem is that even if the Plan
Bs worked out for both SoCal Edison and PG&E, what happens with the other 64%
of their power needs? One legislator notes, "even the good Plan B from
SoCal's perspective makes them essentially a vessel of the state and if we
are still talking about eminent domain with the other plants in California
how do you add new capacity -- which is the ultimate solution -- when
everybody who has come in has their assets seized?" The real issue still
remains for any Plan B is: who pays for it and how much more does it cost
taxpayers. Rate payers in California are already looking forward to a
future where their electricity rates will be paying not only for the
colossally high cost of the power itself, but also the coupons and ultimately
the principal on the $13 billion in bonds just authorized, on the "rate
reduction" bonds already outstanding and -- if the Plan B advocates get their
way -- on bailout debt issues for SoCal Edison and PG&E.
=====================================
|
4,095 |
Subject: RE: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s) Ne
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1767.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 09/26/2000 11:20
AM ---------------------------
MBD <[email protected]> on 09/26/2000 12:14:23 PM
To: "'Susan J Mara'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s) Ne
ede d to brief Governor's Office
Now that I know that Anthony and George Cluff are organizing the event, I
would stay far, far away. Maybe it would be good for them to talk to Gray
Davis, just to clear up this energy thing for him.
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan J Mara [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:16 AM
To: MBD
Cc: 'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'; Mona L Petrochko; Sandra McCubbin
Subject: Re: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s)
Neede d to brief Governor's Office
I certainly don't see why this is confidential. Distribution wheeling has
been
"my baby" at Enron for years but I don't see Anthony Mazy contributing
anything
to the effort. We don't need a big conference, or 150 people, or the
Governor.
We just need the CPUC and the FERC to say "Stop the Madness and Open the
System." So, I won't be participating. Thanks for asking.
MBD <[email protected]> on 09/25/2000 05:43:49 PM
To: "'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'"
<[email protected]>, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES,
Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST:
Speaker(s) Neede d to brief Governor's Office
Here is something you don't see every day. An invitation to talk to Gray
Davis (maybe) about distribution wheeling. Has Enron got a candidate to
offer? I would act quickly. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: Mazy, Anthony [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:01 PM
Subject: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s) Needed to
brief Governor's Office
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
To all persons BCC'd:
There is an urgent need to identify at least one, and possibly two, persons
to sit on a discussion panel to discuss Distribution Wheeling* at a
conference October 21-22, at UC Berkeley. The conference/symposium will be
limited to approximately 150 persons, to allow close and interactive Q&A
between panelists and the key audience of California's executive,
legislative, and regulatory officers, and their key staff. We have been
told that Governor Davis himself is expected to participate.
Please respond ASAP, nominating one individual per message (suitable for
public viewing), identifying the individual together with that person's
relevant interests and affiliations. Add approximately 1/4- to 1/2 page of
details of the person's issue, point-of-view, or proposal, together with
their relevant qualifications to address such.
If there are any questions, please call me at my office number and leave a
message or reply to this e-mail. Due to the urgency of this need, and the
short turn-around requested, you are welcomed to call me at home,
925-855-0554, from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sat-Sun, or 5:30 to 7:30 AM Mon-Fri,
Pacific time.
*Distribution Wheeling is the practice of relieving certain local,
distribution-level energy transactions from some or all of the regulations,
including tariff responsibilities, pertaining to interstate transmission
transactions. This issue has been addressed at some length in the CPUC
proceeding R.99-10-025.
For quick reference, a copy of ORA's testimony in that proceeding (which,
admittedly, does not equally cover all possible interpretations of DW) is
provided for your convenience.
Anthony Mazy, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
San Francisco
V: (415) 703-3036 FAX: (415) 703-1981
<<Mazy, Anthony.vcf>> <<ORA DG OIR Apr12 rev2 Ch2 only for
distribution.doc>>
=====================================
|
4,096 |
Subject: Loretta Lynch lunch
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5150.
=====================================
Went to the Press Club lunch with Loretta Lynch today. I don't think there
was anything remarkable said; in fact, it was difficult to understand
exactly what she was saying due to an extreme case of laryngitis that kept
her voice to a whisper.
She opened with a speech (copies may be distributed later if possible)
saying that there are parallels between today and the 1920s, when California
first started to regulate the "unfettered markets." Like then, she said, it
is unfair for a few sellers to have power over the supply of electricity in
California.
She called it a myth that the PUC opposed letting the utilities sign
long-term contracts. When the utilities asked, she said, PUC gave them that
ability and that they indeed entered into contracts last fall. In some
cases, they made a business decision not to.
She also said it is untrue to contend that the rate freeze is in opposition
to FERC's positions. The rate freeze was an integral part of deregulation,
she said, and FERC approved the federal elements.
Part of the AB 1890 problem, she said, was that private generators would
have had to come into the state and somehow luckily find the right mix to
meet the state's needs, compared to a system in which a body such as the PUC
takes a role in planning. She believes the PUC must take a greater role in
planning -- although she emphasized it only has jurisdiction over utilities
and their retained generation -- to maintain the state's economic stability
and prevent having to buy electricity at skyrocketing rates. She
characterized AB 1890 as flawed theory and unfulfilled promise.
She said FERC has not used its authority to protect California from unjust
rates.
She is in favor of cost-based rates and wants to regulate the utilities'
retained generation.
I managed to ask her if, as legislative and administrative efforts progress
and California possibly buys the grid and more, whether she believes
California will "wall itself off" in the name of self-sufficiency or use an
open-access approach. I followed her answer by asking if she has detected
any fear from other western states about the affect California's decisions
will have on them.
Her reply: We need to look out for California but there is no way you can
isolate yourself because of the nature of power sharing arrangements and the
way power moves. We need to include the interests of neighboring states.
Other states have often had better systems for meeting power needs and we
need to learn from those. We need to fix lax market rules.
She indicated that there is a willingness to work with the other states, and
that there is something of a sense that we're all in this together.
Other stuff: When asked if the state could lock into long term contracts
without a rate increase, she said it depends on how you do it. It depends
on the type of long term contract and QF reform that doesn't put QFs out of
business.
About 30% of California's power is still generated by utilities and
therefore can be regulated by the PUC. She thinks we should re-look at the
baselines to reflect the 21st century, possibly by nature of use or other
factors instead of the climate zones California uses now.
A serious problem in California, she said, is that the accountability and
responsibility for power needs is fractured. One entity's only purpose may
be to make sure power is available, but they won't necessarily consider what
it will cost. California "must repair the link between responsibility and
reliability," she said, adding as a good soldier that the Davis
Administration has taken steps in that direction.
Finally, she was asked about this summer and if blackouts will occur. Her
prediction: If we save 10%, we'll be OK (there was a low grumble in the
room, obviously implying people thought that was unlikely). If it's a 1 in
2 year, we're OK. If it's a 1 in 20 year, serious problems are ahead.
=====================================
|
4,097 |
Subject: FYI--More on contracts and SDG&E rate issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/572.
=====================================
Alternative SDG&E debt plan to get hearings
Approval of the governor's plan for paying the $747 million debt SDG&E says it is owed by its customers appeared less certain yesterday, as the president of the state utilities commission said she planned to hold public hearings for an alternative proposal.
Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in a local radio interview that regulators will hold hearings in San Diego regarding a plan from consumer groups that purports to save customers about $185 million more than the governor's proposal.
The groups said the earlier plan negotiated between the governor and the utility would be costly for consumers and a windfall for San Diego Gas & Electric.
At stake is how much SDG&E contributes and how much customers pay toward the debt, which accumulated in a so-called balancing account when SDG&E paid more for electricity than it was able to collect from customers during the power crisis.
Despite the plan for hearings, Lynch told KPBS-FM radio that the commission would make a final decision about how to resolve the controversial $747 million debt by November.
The governor and SDG&E announced their plan in June, saying it required the utility to contribute $319 million toward the debt and eliminated the balancing account without lengthy litigation or raising rates.
Consumer groups, led by the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, say the governor's plan does not go far enough, particularly because SDG&E earned an estimated $400 million in profits from the sale of electricity during the power crisis.
Under the governor's plan, those profits are awarded to the company's shareholders, though SDG&E would use $219 million from the profits as part of its $319 million contribution toward the debt.
Under the consumer groups' plan, SDG&E would be allowed to keep some of the profits, but it would contribute $72 million more than it would under the governor's plan. The alternative plan also would require the utility to make other monetary concessions.
In a formal decision earlier this year, the California utilities commission said SDG&E's profits do belong to customers. SDG&E has sued to overturn the decision in court, but it has put the litigation on hold pending the utilities commission's resolution of the plan to pay the debt.
Michael Shames, executive director of UCAN, said yesterday that he was encouraged by Lynch's call for hearings on the consumer plan.
"There is $400 million at stake here," Shames said.
SDG&E said yesterday that it had not received formal notification about the hearings, nor had it yet seen the alternative plan for paying the debt.
A spokesman for the utility, however, repeated earlier comments that the company saw the alternative plan as an attempt to derail the PUC's process of considering the governor's plan.
Lynch also said yesterday that the utilities commission would continue to challenge the more than $40 billion in long-term electricity contracts signed by the state during the crisis.
Lynch said the agreements bind the state to overpriced power and are in violation of federal law requiring electricity rates to be "just and reasonable."
The utilities commission president said the contracts may be even more expensive than earlier thought because at least some of the power they bind California to purchase is not needed. The extra costs would damage businesses and family budgets, she said.
"If you have to pay three to four times more for energy, you don't have the money to grow your business or meet other needs of your family," Lynch said.
She also defended action by the commission last week that effectively delayed the sale of $12.5 billion in state bonds needed to pay power costs. Lynch said the commission supported a legislative proposal for floating the bonds, which would separate them Sfrom the long-term power contracts.
=====================================
|
4,098 |
Subject: Qwest's construction problems
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/287.
=====================================
God, when will it end!!!
----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 12/23/99 08:06 PM
-----
Kevin Kohnstamm
12/21/99 10:00 AM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Qwest's construction problems
---------------------- Forwarded by Kevin Kohnstamm/Enron Communications on
12/21/99 10:02 AM ---------------------------
From: Robb Justice on 12/20/99 02:00 PM
To: Scott Smith/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Kevin
Kohnstamm/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Qwest's construction problems
Fiber Optic Network Gets Hung Up on Indian Graveyard
Posted December 20, 1999 04:00 AM PST
California officials have slapped a stop-work order on one company's effort
to wire the state with fiber optic cable, saying the project may be
threatening traditional Indian burial grounds. Peter Allen, a lawyer for the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), said Friday that Denver-based
Qwest Communications International Inc.had been instructed to pull its
construction teams from the field pending resolution of the issue.
"They need to show that they are following the proper procedures and not
going through any actual Indian burial sites,'' Allen said. The stop work
order was issued Thursday after local Ohlone Indians spotted a Qwest
construction crew digging a trench near a well-known tribal burial ground in
San Jose, California.
"They should have known it was there. It was a recorded site,'' Larry Myers,
executive secretary of the state's Native American Heritage Commission, told
the San Jose Mercury News.
The 1,000-year old graveyard was unearthed a decade ago, and has been called
one of the most important ever found in northern California, providing
valuable clues about the Ohlone diet, health and social structure long before
the arrival of European explorers. While the construction crew was operating
several blocks from the grave site itself, state officials generally consider
such areas to be surrounded by a "sensitive area'' of up to half a mile
because bones and artifacts can moved by underground streams and shifting
soil.
For Qwest, the order means that construction and repair work must stop for up
to two months in California, an important part of its 24,500 mile network of
fiber optic cable around the United States. "We're trying to meet this
aggressively and head on,'' said Qwest spokesman Matt Burkett, adding that
the stop work order applied only to actual physical installations and would
not effect the company's existing service.
"We want to be sensitive to whatever issues (Native American groups) have and
get a resolution that is fair to everyone as soon as possible.'' As part of
its moves to address the issue, Qwest asked an Ohlone activist to serve as a
paid monitor at the San Jose construction site.
Allen said the order against Qwest was the latest in a series of actions
against telecommunications firms which Indian heritage preservation groups
say are flouting environmental laws and measure designed to preserve
archeological sites. Other telecoms firms that have been hit with temporary
stop work orders in the past include Level 3 Communications, Pacific Fiber
Link and Metromedia Fiber Network , which have been asked to stop
installation work for periods ranging from six weeks to six months.
Allen said the Public Utilities Commission was concerned that upgrade plans
within the intensely competitive telecommunications industry could lead to
more environmental and historical sites being endangered by rampant and
unsupervised construction.
"There's a lot of competition and a lot of competitive pressure. A lot of
people are out there building as fast as they can,'' Allen said. "It's tough
to balance the need to meet the demand for this telecoms infrastructure with
the need to do an adequate environmental review.''
=====================================
|
4,099 |
Subject: CSHE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4769.
=====================================
Jeff, the "powers" in Houston believe you are the right guy to do this. are
you available? Can you confirm with the gentleman below.
George Waidelich
925-543-3801
---------------------- Forwarded by George Waidelich/SFO/EES on 03/22/2001
08:39 AM ---------------------------
Eric Letke
03/22/2001 08:05 AM
To: George Waidelich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: CSHE
Mike Smith is all right with it. Preference is to have Gov Affairs do it.
Please check with Jeff D to see if he or someone in their group can do. We
will be back-up.
---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Letke/DUB/EES on 03/22/2001 09:59 AM
---------------------------
George Waidelich
03/20/2001 10:50 AM
To: Eric Letke/DUB/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: CSHE
What do you want me to tell these guys? I don't mind telling them because of
the lawsuit we are not interested.
GW
---------------------- Forwarded by George Waidelich/SFO/EES on 03/20/2001
08:49 AM ---------------------------
"anthony moddesette" <[email protected]> on 03/20/2001
07:52:42 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: CSHE
George, running out of time. Any idea when we will receive approval?
Tks, Tony
----- Forwarded by anthony moddesette/RMC/HS/UCD on 03/20/2001 07:53 AM
-----
anthony
moddesette To: [email protected]
cc:
03/09/2001 bcc: [email protected]
04:18 PM Subject: CSHE
This is a request for Enron to participate in an educational program for
the California Society for Healthcare Engineering (CSHE). CSHE is a
nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting the healthcare
professionals in California by providing educational opportunities,
interdisciplinary awareness, code review and is affiliated with the
American Society for Healthcare Engineering and the California Hospital
Association. Our membership roll averages about 1000 members representing
over 150 hospitals and hundreds of architects and engineering firms.
Each year CSHE hosts a 2-3 day Institute featuring topics of current
interest presented by professional, qualified, expert speakers and
panelists. This year the Institute will be held on May 10 & 11th in
Monterey. We expect about 200 attendees.
On Friday, the 11th, we will have a panel discussion on the topic of
energy. It is scheduled from 9 am to noon and consist of 3 panel speakers.
Each speaker will make a 20-30 minute presentation which will be followed
by a Q&A period. We currently have 2 of the 3 speakers signed up: an
energy engineering firm speaking on energy conservation, A VP from the
California Hospital Association speaking on the legislative/regulatory
issues that could impact healthcare facilities energy programs.
The 3rd speaker will be someone who can talk about the current energy
market conditions (gas & electricity) and the possible future market
conditions. We hope Enron will agree to be the energy market speaker.
I would like to emphasis the educational nature of our program. The
audience will be knowledgeable and will expect professional presentations.
Each of our facility members are dealing with the energy crisis daily and
will be eager to learn. Enron can be very helpful with creating a better
understanding of the variables and options available to hospitals.
I am the CSHE State Vice Chair and will become the State Chair at the
Institute this year.
I hope Enron will act favorable upon this request. We are preparing our
program for printing now and a timely response would be appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance,
Anthony S. Moddesette
Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
UCDavis Medical Center
4800 2nd Ave Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95817
916/734-2472
Tks, Tony
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19026.pcx)
- pic19026.pcx
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.