dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
4,100 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ - CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2929.
=====================================
the PX is seeming to say that it will turn to the state to "save" it from FERC
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 02:16 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
11/01/2000 08:49 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: DJ - CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Nov
2000 10:36:07 -0600 -----
To: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox"
<[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ - CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
CalPX's take on FERC's ability to end mandatory buy requirement.
DJ CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The chief executive officer of the California Power
Exchange responded Tuesday to details in a federal energy regulatory report
that suggests the two-year-old exchange's mandatory buy requirement was
partly to blame for this past summer's soaring wholesale electricity prices.
The details of the landmark probe prepared by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is scheduled to be released Wednesday morning, but some
commissioners told Dow Jones Newswires the report will suggest that the
state's mandatory buy rule should be abolished and utilities should be
permitted to purchase their power through other power exchanges.
"We believe that the representation of the CalPX contributing to soaring
wholesale prices is incorrect and misleading," said CalPX CEO George Sladoje.
"Over the summer months, certain wholesale market participants chose to
not take full advantage of the price and cost mitigating products offered
through the CalPX...if a participant chose to purchase all or most of their
energy on the spot market, they often paid much more than other participants
who chose to buy in the forwards market," Sladoje added.
It is widely known in the wholesale electricity market that Sempra
Energy (SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric Co. purchased most of their power
in the spot market, which the utility passed on to its customers at a much
higher price.
SDG&E also complained to federal regulators that the CalPX hourly and
day-ahead market clearing prices are too high.
When California moved to electricity deregulation four years ago, a
statewide power exchange was created requiring Edison International (EIX)
unit Southern California Edison, PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. to purchase all of their power through
the exchange until 2002, the expected transition date to a completely
deregulated market.
But the FERC report proposes that utilities be permitted to purchase
power from other exchanges in an effort to generate increased competition,
commissioners said.
The CalPX purchases power one day in advance for California's three
investor-owned utilities. Suppliers bid in power indicating their price. For
each hour of the next day, the price of the last megawatt taken to meet
demand sets the market price.
In various reports issued since 1996, FERC has commended the state's
Power Exchange for running a successful market that helped mitigate concerns
about market power abuses.
If the FERC report suggests that California end the mandatory buy
requirement, it will be up to state lawmakers to see to draft Legislation to
change the market rules, according to the CalPX.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 31-10-00
=====================================
|
4,101 |
Subject: FW: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/431.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 3:34 PM
To: Dernehl, Ginger
Subject: FW: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Please distribute worldwide. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Samantha Slater [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]; Linnell, Elizabeth; Kingerski, Harry;
[email protected]; [email protected]; Robinson, Marchris; Petrochko,
Mona; Kaufman, Paul; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Landwehr, Susan M.; Chapman,
Tom
Subject: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Wholesale Competition Contributed to Trend of
Lower Power Prices, According to New EPSA Study
Washington, D.C., July 23, 2001 -- Calls for a return to cost-plus rate regulation in the wake of the California power crisis are misplaced, according to an independent study released today that found that competitive markets contributed to a 36 percent decline in retail electricity prices among surveyed utilities.
"That decrease is in sharp contrast to the increases that consumers experienced in the days of solely cost-plus rate regulation," said Electric Power Supply Association President Lynne H. Church, who released the findings during a media luncheon in conjunction with the group's summer membership meeting. "This analysis is evidence that we should continue to move forward toward more competition in order to apply downward pressure on prices."
The study: "Assessing the 'Good Old Days' of Cost-Plus Regulation," analyzed sales data for 60 of the nation's investor-owned utilities during 1985-1999, when traditional cost-plus rate regulation began evolving toward more competition. Complete sales figures for 2000 were not yet available when the study was completed. The study was commissioned by EPSA and conducted by Craig Roach, Ph.D., principal of Boston Pacific Co.
"In the wake of the California power crisis, some people have expressed a longing for a return to the 'good' old days of cost-plus regulation, but those days were far from good," Roach said. "People seem to forget that, in the days of cost-plus regulation between 1970 and 1985, inflation-adjusted electricity prices actually increased 25 percent for residential customers and increased 86 percent for industrial/commercial customers."
"So much for the good old days," Church said. "The price increases under cost-plus regulation were precisely what drove the start of electricity competition in the early and mid-1980s."
During the 1985-1999 period, according to the analysis, inflation-adjusted electricity prices decreased an average 30 percent for residential customers and 36 percent for industrial/commercial customers.
"We should not allow the problems in California to cast a false shadow on competition," Church said. "The evidence presented in this study makes it clear that it would be counterproductive and unwise to go back to the old ways."
"It is important to understand that what happened in California resulted, in part, from market rules that prohibited basic risk management," Roach said. "Specifically, utilities were required to take on the risk of selling at a fixed price to customers, but not allowed to manage that risk by arranging contracts with fixed-price suppliers or use other risk management tools. Managing risk appropriately benefits consumers, and risk management is more efficient and effective in a truly competitive regime."
"This study bolsters our belief that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should continue to move expeditiously toward more efficient wholesale markets, states should continue to move quickly toward opening their retail power markets, and Congress should quickly adopt comprehensive legislation to help them along," Church said.
-EPSA-
Note: A copy of the complete study is available at www.bostonpacific.com/powerprices.
=====================================
|
4,102 |
Subject: Re: FW: Paths of influence
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3491.
=====================================
Dirk/Jay - thanks for the quick response. I want to insure we have
accurately portrayed the situation to you both (the real duration of our
requests, and the real response time of the utilities). Don't want anyone to
walk into a response of "..... we've only had that request for XX days....".
We do need help though if we want to achieve our aggressive schedule.
We are falling behind our target schedule due to a lack of pulse meter
contact installations. How hard would it be to get informal org charts for
the metering side of SCE, SDGE, and PGE (just simple bob works for jim who
works for tom who reports to bill), and......, to identify who (within
Enron/CEC/ISO) has the relationship(s) with those groups?
The execution side of the boxter effort asked Jay who they could talk to to
insure we were working "smart" in California with respect to getting interval
meters modified to include pulse contacts. The execution team wants to
insure that we aren't standing in the wrong long line. We want to know who
we could/should call to express our "appreciation" for all their cooperation,
and to insure they knew our aggressive timetable. How many times have
you/we heard "........ oh....., that's what you are doing....., if someone
had just called me........, I could have........".
The request for "contacts" (and to know the metering org chart inside each of
these three utilities) was so we could attempt to penetrate those three org's
(SCE, SDGE, PG&E) at the optimum level. Additionally - if we have acct mgmt
folks that have relationships - we want to leverage those.
Tom - can you provide to those listed above the short exec summary of what we
have requested from SDGE, SCE, PGE, and...., what their response has been
(use the attached XLS chart). Help charactarize when we officially made
request, so that we provide an accurate perception of the three utility's
responses.
Thx
From: Dirk vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on 05/10/2001
11:53 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Chris Holmes/HOU/EES@EES, James Wright/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, Fred Kelly/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: FW: Paths of influence
Jeff, we are rolling out a CEC/CALISO curtailment initiative in California
that provides major benefits to our customers. Before the program can be
implemented, customer facilities need to be equipped with a pulse generating
meter (a modified version of a regular meter). As we are no longer the MSP we
now have to rely on the UDCs to install these meters. We fully expect to pay
for these installations but we are getting major push back in SCE and PG&E
territory with respect to scheduling these installations. If we were to go by
PG&E's schedule (12 weeks), the summer will be over and most benefits will be
lost.
We are under the impression that Enron is plain dirt in the eyes of the UDC
employees, and we are being singled out by the rank and file folks as the
major culprit for the energy crisis. However primitive that opinion is, we
are stuck with it. Please note Jay Ferry's contention below.
Is there a way for you to nudge some UDC executives and ask them to instruct
their field crews to start cooperating? We could use the help.
Dirk A. van Ulden
Director, Account Services
Enron Energy Services, Northwest Region
(925) 543-3879
2-way pager 877-680-9472
Fax (925) 543-3550
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Ferry,Jay
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:32 AM
To: vanUlden, Dirk
Subject: Paths of influence
Dirk,
We have been working with Mike Connaly and his boss, Mel Calais, at SCE to
expedite deployment of pulse meters. Do you know the chain of command there
and if there is anyone higher that we could call if work continues to move
along at a snail's pace. Please call me (713-646-7086) or respond by e-mail,
if you can't reach me.
Thanks,
j
=====================================
|
4,103 |
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/718.
=====================================
All, this is currently an issue not only with the Annual Merger Savings
Credit, but also the SDGE Rate Reduction Bond Credits. SDGE recently
refunded these credits to our customers by check. We are currently in the
process of collecting these credits from the commercial accounts. But, do
we recover these credits (amounting to $765,000) from the residential
customers?
Below is a description of the reason for this credit.
> This credit has been made possible due to a unique set of circumstances
> involving electric industry restructuring, which has proceeded in
> accordance with California State law (AB 1890). AB 1890 required SDG&E
to
> lower electric rates by 10% for residential and small commercial
> customers, then froze rate levels for up to 4? years. AB 1890 also
> allowed SDG&E to issue rate reduction bonds to finance the rate
reduction.
> In 1997, SDG&E issued rate reduction bonds in an amount adequate to
> provide a 10% rate reduction for 4? years.
>
> However, SDG&E was able to recover many costs related to the transition
to
> a competitive market 2
years early -- by last July -- through the sale
of
> its two San Diego power plants at higher than expected prices and through
> numerous other actions. That combination of factors and the benefits of
> the rate reduction bonds mean SDG&E is able to distribute about $390
> million to its customers.
>
> The bonds cannot be paid off early, so the current "trust transfer
amount"
> line item on the SDG&E bill, which pays for the bonds, will continue for
> the bond life.
>
> An important point to clarify is that the money being distributed does
not
> represent over-collections from prior years. Customers have benefited
> from many of the changes brought about by electric industry
restructuring.
> These include the 10% electric rate reduction, the electric rate freeze
> and the monthly trust transfer amount credit. The trust transfer amount
> is the charge that pays for the rate reduction bonds, has funded the
> benefits customers have already received and is funding this "lump sum
> trust transfer amount credit".
>
Enron Energy Services
From: Marianne Castano 09/28/2000 12:39 PM
To: Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen A Cordova/HOU/EES@EES, Diann
Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Dennis: Just wanted to bring this item to your attention. We've researched
the terms of our residential agreements and have noted that they are silent
as to the issue of credits/refunds. I've asked Jeff and Mike Day, our
regulatory counsel in CA, for their input on whether we should refund these
credits back to our residential customers.
Notwithstanding the fact that the language of the original decision
allowing the credits does not address direct access customers, Jeff and Mike
recommend, given the current climate in California, that we take action to
refund these credits to our residential customers.
Just want to make sure you're "on board" with this before we direct CSC to
refund the credit back to our residential accounts...Marianne
.
Enron Energy Services
From: Karen A Cordova 09/21/2000 05:00 PM
Phone No: 713.853.3150
713.646.8860 - FAX No.
To: Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: SDG&E Credits
Diane Huddelston called Lori Pinder about an issue; Here it is:
Due to the merger btw SDG&G & Sempra Energy (about a year or less ago), a
savings was realized. The CPUC said these savings must be passed on to
customers 1 time per year, in September. They are called Annual Merger
Credits.
Pursuant to all commercial contracts, Enron is entitled to keep the savings
(per Diane). What about the residential customer accounts?
Enron keeps the savings or should the residential customer receive?
Who could handle this issue for Diane?
Thanks, KC
=====================================
|
4,104 |
Subject: Re: FW: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/818.
=====================================
Becky, this is relatively standard "stuff" (a high level technical term, only
grasped after many years of exhaustive technical training) that we have
endorsed in several other jurisdictions (although I didn't do a word for word
comparison, it reads very similar to the requirements in play in Texas). I
do have a couple of comments giving the DER owner some additional rights
(more commercial than technical) than the present draft allows. Please note
that the manufacturers of DER equipment (Capstone, Honeywell/Allied, GE,
etc) are the authorities in the technical area (such as how quick, in cycles,
their equipment can disconnect from the utility's system, etc.) and should be
carrying "Enron's water" in this regard. If they are not participating in
this particular proceeding, pleae let me know and I will make some calls and
see if we can get some support from them.
Jeff Brown
08/28/2000 05:44 PM
To: Becky L Merola/DUB/EES@EES
cc: Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES, Robin Kittel/HOU/EES@EES, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, [email protected], Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Richard
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: FW: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
Becky - I will read tonight, please call me tomorrow morning to dsicuss. I
will be in by 7 am (853-4350).
Thanks - Jeff
Becky L Merola
08/24/2000 10:07 AM
To: Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES, Robin Kittel/HOU/EES@EES, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES
cc: [email protected], Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: FW: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
Hi Folks:
For those of you who have more technical expertise in electricity, if you
could look at the attached document and provide me with your comments by
August 29th it would be greatly appreciated. If there is anyone else that
you feel may be of assistance in this matter please don't hesitate to forward
this document. Thank you for your help.
---------------------- Forwarded by Becky L Merola/DUB/EES on 08/24/2000
10:56 AM ---------------------------
"Taft, Sheldon A." <[email protected]> on 08/24/2000 09:47:18 AM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc: "Petricoff, M. Howard" <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
Here are the Technical Requirements proposed by the utilities at the August
23 PUCO Workshop on Interconnection. Please have your technical people
review these and share with us any issues or problems that marketers would
have with them. We will need to identify these issues and problems and to
propose alternatives before the next workshop meeting on August 30.
-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 10:40 AM
To: Taft, Sheldon A.
Subject: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
<<Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC>> Here it is. Thank you.
From the law offices of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If
you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications
through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.
________________________________________________________________________
- Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
=====================================
|
4,105 |
Subject: Re: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/498.
=====================================
Hi Jeff,
Make sure the access to the network is defined as DS1 access...We would like
DS3 access pricing because that is the minimum level of service we trade at
today. Also, please indicate that the current available capacity is about 1
OC3, (the current OC12 network is running about half full and the ISO wants
about an OC3 of overhead capacity with which to scale their customers'
demand. We need to determine the interval between the time the ISO requests
the upgrade to OC48 from MCI and the time that upgrade would be made
available...California OVER estimated the number of users...
Just a thought, but the ISO might be able to get MCI to reduce the Yearly fee
they charge by waiving the right to the upgrade. MCI would have to spend a
significant amount of $ to do the upgrade. Also, MCI is losing $ on those
access loops. If the ISO were to threaten to request 2000 loops that MCI was
going to lose $100,000 per month on, MCI might reduce their charges if the
ISO were to reduce the open call.
Dan Minter
V: (503)886-0452
F: (503)886-0441
Jeff Dasovich@EES
04/20/00 10:18 AM
To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity
Yo Dan:
Could you do me a favor and take a look at my very brief summary below and
make any changes you like. I'd like to give folks some information as to the
status of the ISO deal. Appreciate it.
Best,
Jeff
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 04/20/2000 10:17
AM ---------------------------
Jeff Dasovich on 04/17/2000 04:32:25 PM
To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity
Dan: Below I've provided a very brief summary of our meeting with the ISO.
Please review and edit in any fasion you deem appropriate then send back to
me. I will then distribute to a very small group (e.g., Jean Mrha, Tom Gros,
and a couple of folks in my group who also work on EBS issues). Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
**********
We have sent the attorney representing the ISO a standard EBS NDA to review.
We expect to have the NDA signed within the week. The following is a summary
of what occured at the meeting.
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 an 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.
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.
The contract also permits interconnection to the network (by MCI) for $485,
irrespective of difference from the grid.
The Goals of the 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 he would do a long-term, firm deal if it reduced his costs
significantly.
=====================================
|
4,106 |
Subject: Ballot initiative to take over Cal. electric system and require
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2035.
=====================================
California Consumer Group Submits Electricity Reregulation Ballot Initiative
Nov. 28, 2000
Dow Jones Online News
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -- A California consumer group submitted a draft ballot
initiative to the governor and state legislature Tuesday, calling for a
publicly owned and controlled electricity system. The Foundation For
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights called for the creation of a state
power authority that would build and operate power plants, transmission and
distribution facilities.
It also advocated the oversight of electricity rates by the state Public
Utilities Commission, and the issuance of refunds to San Diego
customers who were hit with large bills this summer when they were exposed
to full market rates.
The consumer group filed papers Tuesday with the Secretary of State to
establish a campaign committee called the Campaign for the
Protection of Ratepayers, which would sponsor the 2002 ballot measure, FTCR
announced at a press conference Tuesday.
Refunds should be issued to customers of Sempra (SRE) unit San Diego Gas and
Electric Co. via a "windfall profits tax" on power
companies that sold energy at unjust and unreasonable prices, according to
the FTCR draft.
The PUC should be authorized to establish the thresholds for excessive
energy prices that would be used in determining the tax. It should
also be able to oversee the issuance of refunds, as well as electric rates
on a cost-of-service basis, the FTCR said.
At the same time, the PUC should be restructured so its commissioners are
more publicly accountable. A Citizen Utility Board should also
be created to protect consumer interests, the FTCR said.
The FTCR also advocated that a separate state agency be created that could
build, own, operate and buy power plants and transmission
and distribution assets. That agency could auction the right to build plants
to, or contract with, private generators that would sell energy to
utilities on a cost-of-service basis.
As well, the FTCR recommended giving authority to state and local
governments to take over generation, transmission and distribution
assets if necessary. No specifics were given in the draft on what would
necessitate such a takeover.
FTCR stressed that Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California
Edison and PG&E Corp. (PGE) unit Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
shouldn't be permitted to back bill customers for the unexpectedly high cost
of buying wholesale power this summer.
The two utilities have filed lawsuits against the PUC for authority to
recover those costs, as they are unable to do so while their customers
are under a state-mandated rate freeze.
"Any effort to force the ratepayers to pay even one cent more to cover the
greed and stupidity of the utility companies in this disaster of their
own making will conclude our participation in the legislative process," said
FTCR president Harvey Rosenfield.
Mr. Rosenfield questioned how the utilities could claim they are having
financial difficulties when they donated $1.2 million to lawmakers
and lobbyists in this year's third quarter, and called for a moratorium on
power company campaign contributions.
"We urge elected officials to cease accepting money from any of the
interested utility and power companies ... while the deliberations are
underway. To fail to do so will cause the public to doubt the integrity of
the legislative process," Rosenfield said.
Mr. Rosenfield also said his group would "not participate in any
behind-closed-doors legislative negotiations or discussions," saying that
the 1996 deregulation law was "the product of a three-week legislative
ramrod featuring back-room meetings, late-night hearings, payoffs
for various participants and other shenanigans."
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones&Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
DJON0033314400
=====================================
|
4,107 |
Subject: RE: ML Power Group-EIX-Update Following Meeting With Management
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/597.
=====================================
I frankly have put NO creadance into their timeline. Until the investment banks / commercial banks get in and assess whether there is an exit financing that is sufficient to take out the "just pay me nows" they are nowhere. This will drag out. The capital markets could not be more choppy to launch this discussions than right now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:34 AM
To: Tribolet, Michael
Subject: RE: ML Power Group-EIX-Update Following Meeting With Management
Doesn't this constitute a change in Edison's position, i.e., I thought they'd indicated that everyone would be paid by end of Q1'03. Now it appears they're saying that suppliers will get paid by year-end '03. Am I missing something? Thanks for the info.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Tribolet, Michael
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:27 AM
To: Schneider, Chip; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Dasovich, Jeff;
Bradford, William S.
Subject: FW: ML Power Group-EIX-Update Following Meeting With Management
-----Original Message-----
From: Hunter Horgan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:25 AM
To: Tribolet, Michael
Subject: FW: ML Power Group-EIX-Update Following Meeting With Management
-----Original Message-----
From: ML Power Group [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ML Power Group-EIX-Update Following Meeting With Management
* We met with Edison management on Friday (10/12) to discuss the recently
announced settlement agreement between the company and the CPUC. The
agreement, which was approved by Judge Lew on 10/5, provides a framework for
Edison to repay creditors on a Q1 2002 time frame and, ultimately, to resume
power procurement responsibilities.
* Edison?s current estimate is that past power procurement debts will be
recovered by year-end 2003. Discussions are ongoing with banks regarding a
bridge loan, which is key in terms of getting creditors paid on time.
* Negotiations with the renewable QF generators continue with both sides
apparently seeking a fixed-price contract. The main issue is likely to be
timing of the switch to a new pricing formula, particularly as there will
likely be a substantial increase over current payments indexed to gas
prices.
* Regarding other generator creditors, Edison will be pursuing a negotiated
settlement. One key date in this process is March 31, 2002, after which
Edison is committed to join the state and the CPUC in pursuing legal action
to recover alleged generator overcharges.
* One option is a so-called ?grand agreement? under which Edison would agree
on the starting amount owed to each generator. This would potentially
release Edison to negotiate with the individual generators directly, as
opposed to through the PX/ISO.
* Edison expects to provide more detail of its earnings outlook within a few
weeks ? but probably not in time for the Q3 results release though.
* Several key accounting issues need to be resolved first, notably whether
or not the PROACT (Procurement Related Obligations Account) will be set up
as a regulatory asset. Another key issue outstanding is the utility
retained generation (URG) rate proceeding currently under way at the CPUC.
* Given the above uncertainties, it is still difficult to be precise about
the earnings impact of the Edison settlement. For the time being we are
sticking with our 2002E of $1.60, comprising $1.40 from the utility and
$0.20 for the non-regulated businesses and parent. There is potential
upside to our numbers, particularly if previous tax sharing arrangements are
restored under the terms of the settlement agreement.
* Edison is trading at 9.6x our 2002E, only modestly below the group average
multiple. We see only modest upside from here at this stage, although
clarity on the non-regulated outlook is a potential positive catalyst.
=====================================
|
4,108 |
Subject: Direct Access 8/10/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/283.
=====================================
Below is a brief summary of the main issues regarding Direct Access. We wi=
ll continue to the follow the progress and keep you updated.=20
Summary:
Direct access was designed to break utility monopolies and was a key compon=
ent of California's 1996 deregulation law. Under this concept, all custome=
rs could directly access an energy provider other than their regulated util=
ity. The debate over direct access is at the heart of a complicated attemp=
t to solve California's costly power crisis. It will determine whether bus=
inesses, with residential customers, pay for the bulk of the state's future=
energy purchases. It also could determine whether Southern California Edis=
on, the state's cash-strapped No. 2 utility, will avoid bankruptcy, and whe=
ther deregulation will survive in any form.
Big businesses, free-market advocates and alternative energy providers have=
lobbied state legislators to find a way to keep so-called "direct access".=
Now, as the state prepares to sell $13.4 billion in bonds to begin paying=
off its debt, legislators and energy officials say they must prevent big b=
usinesses from wiggling out of that obligation by closing off their direct-=
access escape route. Regulators are concerned that if businesses flee the =
system, the state will be stuck with too much electricity under long-term e=
lectricity contracts through 2021. That would mean residential ratepayers =
would be stuck paying the bulk of the $43 billion in future power costs, a =
point that has enraged consumer groups. Currently, only about 88,000 custo=
mers buy their energy through direct access (per CEC statistics), including=
about 10,000 large commercial/industrial customers, and about 78,000 resid=
ences. Alternative service providers shifted most of their customers back =
to California's primary utility suppliers (SoCal Ed., PG&E, SDG&E) earlier =
this year when prices skyrocketed and they could no longer compete with uti=
lity rates capped by the Legislature. =20
California legislators argue that direct access is the keystone of the late=
st Edison bailout plan, sponsored by Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Fred Keeley. =
Under the plan, the 3,600 largest businesses would agree to pay $3.1 billio=
n of Edison's debts over 15 years. In exchange, businesses would be allowe=
d to secure their own power contracts by 2003, but not without first paying=
an "exit fee." The fees and which parties would be exempt remain undeterm=
ined, however, they would include a surcharge or a complicated calculation =
in which businesses would pay a percentage of future energy purchases. It =
is likely that whatever compromise legislators are able to reach regarding =
direct access, California's business community will have extreme difficulty=
accepting the terms.
To ensure their efforts at resolving the direct access dilemma and abate fe=
ars of a collapsing state budget, lawmakers have gone so far as to introduc=
e two bills, (one sponsored by Sen. Bowen and defeated in July, and a secon=
d by Assemblyman Dave Kelley,) that would rescind language in previous legi=
slation that authorized the Public Utilities Commission to block direct acc=
ess. The California PUC has thus far stayed a decision on the matter, but =
is expected to rule by August 23rd.
Complicating the issue is Wall Street. The state's bankers, led by J.P Mor=
gan, are nervous about selling as much as $13.4 billion in planned state bo=
nds if businesses (currently the largest ratepayers in the state, after gov=
ernments) find a way out of the system. The bonds are meant to repay the s=
tate for $8.2 billion in power-buying costs so far this year and to cover s=
ome future costs. Business and residential electricity customers would rep=
ay the bonds through a surcharge on their utility bills. If businesses wer=
e allowed to sign on with outside energy providers, that revenue stream wou=
ld be in jeopardy.
=====================================
|
4,109 |
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11084.
=====================================
Agreed. Trying to be too cute with our strategy is difficult.
Look, about 4 years ago we pulled out of the market. I think that we need to
simply accept that these customers are going back sooner or later. NPC won't
even pick this up.
Jim
Paul Kaufman@ECT
04/13/2001 01:06 PM
To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
I like the idea, particularly if we can time any decision to turn the
customers back so it falls after the failure to get some action out of Sacto
(instead of after our earnings release).
The only problem I see is that we would need a decision from the top that
we're not going to turn the customers back if we get direct access (so we can
end the debate). I don't think it helps us if we get lucky, get direct
access back, then make a decision to return customers to the utility.
Karen Denne@ENRON
04/13/2001 10:30 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
Before any decision is made, I think we really need to weigh in with EES on
the ramifications (both PR and legislative) of turning back 16,000
residential customers. I strongly believe that the public hit we will take
will be far greater than our actual out-of-pocket losses. We will be
crucified by the public, media, consumer groups, legislators, governor,
attorney general, etc., and this action will reaffirm our reputation of
packing up and leaving when it's not in our interest. The impact of this
action would be exacerbated since it is on the heels of UC/CSU.
I would also argue that this hurts our national dereg efforts. If we're
advocating that competition and choice benefits consumers and then we turn
around and pull out of a market and abandon customers when we're not
"profiting," we'll kill any chances we have of ever serving retail customers
in California -- or in any other state. We look foolish advocating for
direct access when we're not willing to serve our existing -- let alone
future customers
What about a preemptive strike that engages these 16,000 customers to weigh
in on direct access -- i.e. a letter that says "Enron may be forced to cancel
its contract -- call/write/send the enclosed postcard to your legislator and
tell them you want to keep your right to choose your energy service provider."
Our credibility is on the line. Before we take this action, we need to be
cognizant of all the long-range strategic implications, and we need to
seriously weigh the negative impact this will have on our corporate
reputation, on our legislative abilities and on our commercial success going
forward.
kd
James D Steffes
04/12/2001 09:05 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
In the meeting today, no decision was made about what to do with Enron's
16,000 residential customers. Each of the contracts gives a basic 30 day
out right to Enron.
That being said, I think that we have a short window to push for DA before
any public action impacts us in Sacramento.
I realize that the ultimate action (which I think is inevitable) makes it
harder for our advocacy on DA, but real $ are flowing out of the company.
EES will give us notice when a decision is reached.
Thanks,
Jim
=====================================
|
4,110 |
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27993.
=====================================
Greetings:
This item will be up for discussion in the California negotiations tomorrow
beginning at 10 AM.
We're going to have a call to discuss it tomorrow from 9 AM to 9:30 AM PDT.
You will receive a call-in number shortly from Joseph Alamo. If there are
others who you think ought to participate, please feel free to invite them.
Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 06/20/2001 05:23 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
06/19/2001 07:11 PM
To: Tim Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Christian Yoder/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve C
Hall/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Contracts--Privileged and Confidential
PLEASE KEEP THIS NOTE, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE NOTE CONFIDENTIAL.
As folks are aware, we have been engaged in closed-door negotiations for the
past two weeks regarding a possible market-based solution to California's
electricity crisis.
In the room are the major large customer groups, environmentalists, small
customers (TURN), Independent Energy Producers, labor, the Western States
Petroleum Association, and Enron.
The negotiations were convened by the Speaker of the Assembly (Bob Hertzberg).
When Hertzberg convened the meeting, he told the parties that he wanted to
achieve a core/noncore structure, similar to the structure in place in
California's gas market (i.e., large customers are required to buy gas from
the market, with Direct Access available to all other customers).
In effect, "core" customers (rez and small business) would be served by the
utilities' retained generating assets and QF contracts; and large customers
would go to market.
The core/noncore structure would begin 1.1.03.
The negotiating group has struggled over the past two weeks, but is close
devising a framework for core/noncore in Californis (but who pays for the
utilities' past debts and the costs of DWR power purchased between January
and today remain very contentious).
Unfortunately, with the release of the information regarding the DWR
contracts last Friday, it is now clear that achieving a core/noncore
structure will be very difficult unless something is done to mitigate the
contracts.
The problem is that, if core is served by utility gen and QFs, and large
customers are in the market, there is no (or very little) need for the DWR
contracts. Instead, they look like a signficant stranded cost.
Hertzberg and the negotiating group are looking to Enron for creative ways to
address "the DWR contract problem" in order to prevent the contracts from 1)
killing the core/noncore deal and 2) forcing California to accept a structure
focused on a state power authority headed-up by David Freeman that does not
include Direct Access.
Christian Yoder and Steve Hall are reviewing the contracts to analyze any
"out clauses" that the buyer and/or the seller might have under the contract
provisions. (My cursory review of the contracts suggests that "outs" for the
state are minimal or nonexistent.)
In addition, we've started batting around ideas about how the State might
reform the contracts.
All this said, want to let everyone know that we have made it extremely clear
that Enron fundamentally opposes any and all attempts to unilaterally
abrogate anyone's contract rights.
We'd like to have a quick call tomorrow (30-60 minutes) to brainstorm some
options that we can offer Hertzberg to handle the contracts and keep the
core/noncore solution alive. We'd like to try to have the the call at 1 PM
PDT. Please let me know if this works for you, and if it doesn't, please let
me know if there's a time after 1 PM PDT that works for you.
Thanks,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,111 |
Subject: FW: GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY COMPANY FILES LICENSE IN TEXAS
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4526.
=====================================
FYI...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott, Eleanor
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:24 PM
> To: Green Family (#266)
> Subject: GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY COMPANY FILES LICENSE IN TEXAS
>
>
> GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY COMPANY FILES LICENSE APPLICATION
> TO PROVIDE CLEANER AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN TEXAS
>
> Company encouraged by regulatory progress promoting
> energy competition in the Texas market
>
>
> Austin, Texas, December 11, 2000..... Green Mountain Energy Company, a
> leading provider of cleaner and renewable electricity, today filed its
> application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) to become a
> Retail Electric Service Provider. Green Mountain Energy Company is the
> first green energy company to apply for a license in Texas. The company
> hopes to provide cleaner and renewable electricity to Texans when the
> market opens to competition in a pilot program this June.
>
> Dennis Kelly, CEO of Green Mountain Energy Company, said, "We are looking
> forward to bringing Green Mountain Energysm to our home state of Texas.
> Most people don't realize that the generation of electricity is the
> largest cause of industrial air pollution in the U.S. We think that when
> Texans learn of the connection between clean air and clean energy, they
> will look for a simple way to purchase electricity that includes clean
> renewable sources like wind, sun and hydropower."
>
> "Green Mountain Energy Company is pleased to submit our application to the
> PUC. We are looking forward to the prospects of doing business in Texas
> and we are excited to see regulatory rules being put in place to promote
> competition, creativity, and innovation in the marketplace," said Gillan
> Taddune, Texas Regional Manager for Green Mountain Energy Company. "The
> PUC has worked diligently to ensure that customers will reap the benefits
> of competition. That is good not only for companies entering the market
> but for all of Texas."
>
> Green Mountain Energy Company, headquartered in Austin, is currently doing
> business in California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and plans to expand
> nationwide as deregulation spreads. As a member of the Alliance for Retail
> Markets, Green Mountain Energy Company has been actively working with
> other potential retail electric providers to develop a fair and
> competitive market in Texas.
>
> Since its inception, Green Mountain Energy Company has been committed to
> using the power of customer demand to bring about the development of new
> renewable energy projects. To date, the company has spurred the
> development of five new renewable projects, which represent vital steps to
> begin to reduce air pollution caused by electricity generation. A summary
> of the five projects is as follows:
>
> * April 22, 1999 - A 43kW solar power plant in Conshohocken,
> Pennsylvania is the largest solar generation facility in the state.
> * July 28, 1999 - Three 700kW Wind Turbines in San Gorgonio Pass in
> California, the first new turbines built due to customer demand.
> * October 19, 1999 - A 132kW solar power plant located in Hopland,
> California.
> * May 1, 2000 - The 10.4MW Green Mountain Wind Farm in Garrett
> Pennsylvania is one of the largest on the East coast.
> * December 7, 2000 - The 100kW Green Mountain Solar - Berkeley
> facility, owned and operated by GPU Solar, was dedicated becoming the
> largest solar array in the San Francisco Bay area.
>
> ###
> About Green Mountain Energy Company
> Green Mountain Energy Company (www.GreenMountain.com
> <http://www.greenmountain.com>) is the leading provider of environmentally
> cleaner electricity to residential customers in California and
> Pennsylvania through its Green Mountain Energysm brand. (Based on
> September 2000 consumer awareness studies). Green Mountain Energysm
> products feature cleaner and renewable generation sources that are
> dramatically cleaner than typical regional system power.
=====================================
|
4,112 |
Subject: PG&E Gas Accord II Settlement Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/6016.
=====================================
Hey dude. Happy Holidays!
I haven't had a chance to look over yet, have you? Anything we need to be
aware of? Let's chat when you get back from holidays.
From: Jeff Dasovich on 12/26/2000 11:21 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Timothy J Hamilton/HOU/EES@EES, Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shelley
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Leslie
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Marsha Carson/ENRON@enronxgate, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: PG&E Gas Accord II Settlement Proposal
Note that this communication is confidential, covered by CA's settlement
rules.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/26/2000 11:14 AM -----
"Lindh, Frank (Law)" <[email protected]>
12/21/2000 07:50 PM
To:
cc:
Subject: PG&E Gas Accord II Settlement Proposal
Confidential Settlement Document
Per CPUC Rule 51
Gas Accord II Settlement Participants:
Attached is PG&E's Gas Accord II (GA II) Settlement Proposal. We believe it
addresses many of the issues and concerns you have raised in the workshops.
As an overview, this proposal:
* Maintains the basic Gas Accord structure in place today for the
period 2003 to 2007.
*
* Offers end user transportation rates for 2003 lower for most
customers than rates in effect today.
*
* Provides for vintaged Redwood path rates for core customers.
*
* Offers a 7.5 cent/dth rate to large customers while minimizing rate
changes to other customers, minimizing the incentive for these customers to
seek to bypass local transmission charges and other CPUC-approved charges.
*
* Adopts guidelines to improve reliability and help moderate prices in
gas commodity markets, and identifies the capital projects needed to meet
these guidelines over the course of the GA II period (2003-2007).
*
* Provides a high degree of rate stability, with a 3.5% escalator to
capture both inflation and the cost of needed capital projects. The
guaranteed rates will be adjustable only for significant changes in the cost
of capital or increased costs due to governmental requirements or
catastrophic events.
*
* Preserves a rate differential between the Redwood and Baja paths,
although somewhat less than the current differential.
*
* Proposes a two-stage open season for firm transportation services
beginning in 2003, with end users receiving a first option on available
capacity.
*
* Maintains the core aggregation program with some adjustments.
PG&E also anticipates that the Core Procurement Incentive Mechanism (CPIM)
will be similar to today's mechanism, but will reflect the somewhat larger
capacity holdings needed to meet anticipated increases in core demand and to
meet a 1-day in 10-year cold weather event.
This also will serve as a reminder that an all-Party meeting is scheduled at
PG&E's headquarters in San Francisco on January 10 and 11, to discuss this
proposal and to respond to your questions. We look forward to answering
your questions and receiving your feedback.
The attached documents include the GA II Settlement proposal, an Attachment
(a copy of PG&E's proposed Gas Rule 27), and a set of supporting workpapers.
Finally, please note that the Settlement document and the Attachment are in
"Word 2000" format. We would be glad to provide the same documents in an
earlier version of Word, upon request by individual Parties.
We look forward to seeing you on January 10-11. In the meantime, we extend
our best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
Frank Lindh Ray Williams
(415) 973-2776 (415) 973-3634
<<PG&E Gas Accord II Settlement Proposal 12-20-00.doc>> <<Proposed Gas
Rule 27.doc>> <<COS & Rates Workpapers for GA II 12-20-2000 Proposal.xls>>
=====================================
|
4,113 |
Subject: LA Times -- Dem leadership to Sue FERC Over Price Cap -- Hertzberg
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12866.
=====================================
Tuesday, May 22, 2001
Legislators Set to Sue Federal Energy Agency
Power: Lawmakers try a new idea: a lawsuit arguing that blackouts pose
danger to people, law enforcement and even water supply.
By DAN MORAIN, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO--Legislative Democrats today will sue federal energy
regulators, charging that their inaction threatens elderly people in nursing
homes, children in day care centers, law enforcement and its ability to fight
crime, and the state's drinking water supplies.
Rather than focus on record wholesale energy costs, the lawsuit takes a
new tack, homing in on the threat to health and safety posed by California's
energy crisis and the blackouts likely this summer.
A draft of the suit seeks to force the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to set "just and reasonable" wholesale power rates as a way of
ending the crisis before blackouts occur. The action is being filed by
veteran trial attorney Joe Cotchett on behalf of Senate President Pro Tem
John Burton (D-San Francisco), Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman
Oaks), and the city of Oakland.
"A crisis of unprecedented dimensions is already taking shape in
California," the draft says. "The public health, safety and welfare of the
state's 34 million residents is in jeopardy due to the tragic consequences of
rolling blackouts and punitive prices."
Suit Says Blackouts Pose Threats
Until now, most California officials, including Gov. Gray Davis, have
been urging that the regulatory commission cap wholesale power prices as a
way of limiting costs to the state, which has spent more than $6 billion
buying electricity since January.
In the lawsuit, Cotchett will be arguing that while higher bills will
stretch the budgets of people on fixed incomes, frail elderly people "are
left to wonder if their oxygen tanks, drip IVs, dialysis machines and
electricity-powered therapeutic beds will respond when they are needed."
"Rolling blackouts represent more than just an annoyance for the men,
women and children with disabilities," the suit says. "They represent an
imminent threat to life, health and independence."
Cotchett said the suit will be filed in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco, bypassing the federal trial court. Cotchett said
the circuit court has direct jurisdiction over FERC.
Joining Cotchett will be Clark Kelso, a professor at McGeorge Law School
in Sacramento who briefly was insurance commissioner last year after Chuck
Quackenbush resigned. Kelso said he initially was skeptical that lawmakers
had legal standing to sue. But after Cotchett spoke with him, Kelso said he
became convinced the suit had merit.
"Let's face it," said Kelso, a Republican, "this is the single most
important issue that the state faces for the next six months."
Watching the Water Supply
The suit cites warnings from governmental agencies about the
implications of blackouts, including one the state Department of Health
Services issued earlier this month to public water agencies statewide. The
warning contains a sample notice that local water authorities should give to
consumers.
"If the water looks cloudy or dirty," the warning says, "you should not
drink it." The warning suggests that if people are concerned about water
quality, they can boil it or add "eight drops of household bleach to one
gallon of water, and let it sit for 30 minutes."
Most water agencies have back-up generators. But the suit says that "if
an agency's water treatment facilities are hit by a power outage, a two-hour
blackout can result in two-day interruptions in providing safe drinking water
because of time needed to bring equipment back online and flush potentially
contaminated water from the system."
Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
=====================================
|
4,114 |
Subject: Corporate Development Director Positions at Sybase
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13048.
=====================================
Both positions are currently located in Emeryville and will be moving to
the new Dublin campus next year.
If you are interested, please email your resume to [email protected]
Director, Global Systems Integrator Alliance
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Execute a channel strategy to engage global systems integrators across
Sybase's value chain.
Promote and track sales to systems integrators such as Accenture, KPMG,
PwC, etc.
Drive programs enabling two or more Big Five consulting firms to sell and
deliver Sybase technology and applications solutions.
Scope value added initiatives in sales, training and marketing, identify
action steps and establish responsibilities and accountabilities for Sybase
and the partner to achieve initiative success.
Act as part of a select team representing Sybase Divisions' needs and
business structure and work with Sybase Divisions to create and implement
new processes which drive operational efficiencies.
Work with headquarter and Division teams to drive partner influenced
license sales for Sybase solution plays.
QUALIFICATIONS:
5-10 yrs business experience with strong operations or major Consulting
Firm background, MBA required.
Understanding of technology, process and organization issues required to
implement significant technology and applications solutions.
Political savvy and executive presence to work with high level Partner and
Sybase management.
Understanding of how Big Five Consulting firms are organized and motivated.
Must be able to translate and represent Sybase value to partners.
Experience leading large teams towards common goals, completing PROGRAM
milestones, keeping senior management and virtual team members informed on
progress, recommending program improvements, and communicating program
success and risks.
Strong program management skills, including attention to detail, ability to
develop partner programs, post actions for organization awareness and drive
delivery dates and actions.
Leadership skills to manage large virtual teams, internal and Partner
based, through the completion of a project.
Director, Partner Operations
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Responsible for developing and tracking account plans for each of the
Strategic partners identified by Corporate Development.
This includes Global System Integrators, Global Independent Software
Vendors, and Global Hardware/Software Platform providers.
Become the single point of contact across the partners, divisions, and the
field sales force on day-to-day operational issues.
Major Duties:
Establish a Go-To-Market model for each engagement
Facilitate integration of partner with division and geographic sales force
Negotiate appropriate global contracts
Track opportunities and resulting revenue
Ensure training and joint marketing occur per the contracts
Resolve day-to-day operational issues
QUALIFICATIONS:
BS/BA & 12+ years or MBA & 11+ years
Strong business development and channel management skills required.
Excellent negotiation, organization, presentation, and communication
skills.
About Sybase, Inc.
Sybase, Inc., is a leading provider of enterprise-class software solutions
that fuel e-Business and enable access to
information anytime, anyplace. As the global expert in the heavy-lifting
infrastructure, Sybase offers what companies
and organizations need in order to do business on the Web. Sybase has been
offering powerful, innovative software
solutions and expertise for more than 16-years.
With its industry-leading Enterprise Portal, mobile and wireless and vertical
market solutions, Sybase is one of the
largest global independent software companies in the world. The company has
an open e-Business platform that
integrates customers' existing systems and gets their businesses on the Web
faster and at less cost than the
competition. Sybase's platform can also go wireless because the company's
subsidiary, iAnywhere Solutions, extends
the platform to mobile and wireless devices.
=====================================
|
4,115 |
Subject: Synopsis of (Ag) Food Processors Rate Design Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4131.
=====================================
CLFP proposes the following changes to medium and large commercial
and industrial customer tariffs for electric service provided by Pacific Gas
and Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company.
CLFP proposes the Commission establish an optional summer on-peak,
peak period consisting of a continuous 3-hour period during the current
summer on-peak period for both utilities. The 3-hour period would be
selected by the customer. Specifically:
Service Eligibility: Customers served as medium or large
commercial/industrial customers on time-of-use rates and metered
accordingly. Examples - PG&E's E-19, E-20, etc. and SCE's TOU-8, etc.
Customer Eligibility: Electric customers processing, handling,
distributing or processing perishable food and agriculture products. (As
noted below, since no revenue shift occurs within the class, the Commission
may consider opening the option to others.)
Customer Charge Surcharge: A surcharge of $130 per meter per month
for the initial summer period (2001) to offset the utilities cost for
changes to billing procedures. In the case of optimal billing period
service customers the surcharge shall correspond with such billing period.
Optional Summer On-Peak Period: Any continuous 3-hour period during
the summer-on-peak period of time. Hours may be designated by the customer
consistent with metering capabilities of the customer or changes to metering
capability.
The reason for designation by the food processor or agriculture
commodity processing customer is in order to take into account the many
factors involved in load shedding. Labor, harvesting schedules and
coordination with growers, delivery schedules, inspection activity, etc.
All bear upon such an effort.
Rate for Optional Summer-On-Peak Period Service: Energy rates for
the 3-hour period would be two times the otherwise applicable charge for
summer-on-peak energy. The other 3 hours of the 6-hour on-peak period would
be billed at the non-peak rate and equalized for rate/revenue neutrality.
In the event partial peak periods are retained, the rate for the
non-optioned 3-hour period during the on-peak period would be adjusted to
retain revenue neutrality. These rates would apply, as now, workdays of
Monday - Friday.
Notice and Service: An eligible customer must notify the utility in
writing, by fax, email, or hand delivered, to both the appropriate account
representative and the customer billing department of the request for
optional summer-on-peak period service. The 3-hour period of optional
service and the start date for such service shall be specified. Start dates
should coincide with billing cycles, with a minimum of seven days notice
prior to such cycle. Optional optimal billing period customers would be
treated accordingly, except as currently provided, a two-day advance notice.
Implementation Issues - TOU Meters and Billing. It appears the
number of customer meters and billing changes potentially required by
optional summer on-peak period service is relatively small compared to the
total number of meters of the utilities.
In response to CLFP's data request by PG&E and SCE (attached) the
following is observed.
For SCE, SIC 20 (food and kindred products) customers account for
approximately 163 meters out of about 10,000 meters. Of the 163, all but 8
can be managed locally by the Customer Data Acquisition System. The 8 would
appear to require a field visit.
For PG&E, out of 11,675 TOU meters on E-19 and E-20 service, 354 or
3% of the total are SIC 20. Of the 354 nearly half, 175, are hourly
interval meters. The remaining 179 presumably would need a field visit for
reprogramming.
Conclusion: Based upon the data supplied, metering and billing
changes required by an optional summer on-peak period program for processors
of perishable commodities, there does not seem, in CLFP's opinion, to be a
significant barrier to establishing the program.
=====================================
|
4,116 |
Subject: Mid-Year Promotions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/680.
=====================================
We are pleased to announce the following promotions, effective August 1:
Bob Deitz Sr. Director National C&P Programs
Patrick Haye Sr. Director Financial Planning and Reporting
Cynthia Wishert Sr. Director Account Implementation Planning
Michael Smith Asst. General Counsel Legal
Marc Andraca Director GNO - Bundled Structuring
Mallikarjun Avs Director Underwriting
Richard Bachmeier Director Gas/Power Tariffs
Robert Bailey Director Bill Payment Services
Aniruddha Duttagupta Director Houston District Engineering & Development
Michelle Foust Director Houston District Acct/Facility Mgmt.
Vivian Hart Director Business Solutions
Victoria Johnson Director Strategic Accounts
Artie Jett Director Performance Measurement
Hordur Kristjansson Director Costa Mesa District Project & Construction
Mgmt.
Mike Lindert Director High-End Commodity Origination
Jeffrey Rudolph Director Gas/Power Tariffs
Christine Straatmann Director GNO - Assets/Labor
Barend Vanderhorst Director Gas Commodity
Roger Yang Director Gas/Power Tariffs
Chuck Andrews Manager EEIS Professional Services
James Barker Manager Gas Commodity
Brian Butler Manager Financial Planning and Reporting
Cory Crofton Manager Financial Planning and Reporting
Dario Cuminato Manager Consumption
Christopher Dalton Manager National C & P Programs
Roderick Hislop Manager Costa Mesa District Engineering &
Development Mgmt.
Laurie Koenig Manager Data Management
Todd Lambert Manager Gas Commodity
Kenneth Lee Manager Risk Analysis
Aandy Ly Manager San Ramon District Engineering & Development
Mgmt.
Daniel Manjarrez Manager A&E Group
Brandon Neff Manager Corporate Development
Jody Nadler Manager Financial Planning and Reporting
Nina Nguyen Manager Financial Planning and Reporting
Cathy Pittenger Manager Risk Analysis
Arun Saha Manager A&E Group
Catherine Simoes Manager Underwriting
Sharon Strong Manager Project Control Systems
Douglas Trimble Manager Contract Risk Management
Tom Warriner Manager A&E Group
Catherine Woods Manager Commercial Account Development
Jessica Zufferli Manager Human Resources
Karen Cordova Sr. Legal Specialist Legal
Lori Pinder-Metz Sr. Legal Specialist Legal
Lane Alexander Sr. Specialist Customer Reporting
Jay Blaine Sr. Specialist Gas Commodity
Amanda Boettcher Sr. Specialist Gas Commodity
Larry Campbell Sr. Specialist Gas Commodity
Joseph Capasso Sr. Specialist Gas Commodity
Megan Corley Sr. Specialist Water Risk Management
James Foster Sr. Specialist Commercial Account Development
Jesus Guerra Sr. Specialist Gas Commodity
Karen Jevince Sr. Specialist Clinton Energy
Josey Keyser Sr. Specialist Clinton Energy
Mark Mixon Sr. Specialist Power Commodity
Tracy Nguyen Sr. Specialist Sales Operations
Alexandra Saler Sr. Specialist Marketing Communications
Chris Smith Sr. Specialist Marketing Communications
Claudia Tauzel Sr. Specialist Clinton Energy
Sherri Zeiler Sr. Specialist EES Retained Team
Cary Bryant Specialist Sales Operations
Kimberly Collins Specialist National C&P Programs
Terry Robertson Specialist Project Control Systems
Jennifer Rudolph Specialist Executive Briefing
Jacqueline Simpson Specialist Clinton Energy
Juan Cid Staff A&E Group
Ann Engelhart Staff A&E Group
Leasa Lopez Admin. Coordinator Legal
Erika Boutte-Dupre Sr. Admin. Assistant Gas Commodity
Esmeralda Hinojosa Sr. Admin. Assistant Risk Management
Karen Street Sr. Admin. Assistant Corporate Development
Please join us in congratulating these individuals on their promotions and
acknowledging their hard work and dedication to the success of EES.
As we move forward in standardizing job groups across Enron, the Sr. Director
job group will no longer be used in the Commercial peer group.
=====================================
|
4,117 |
Subject: FW: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29184.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 3:34 PM
To: Dernehl, Ginger
Subject: FW: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Please distribute worldwide. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Samantha Slater [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]; Linnell, Elizabeth; Kingerski, Harry;
[email protected]; [email protected]; Robinson, Marchris; Petrochko,
Mona; Kaufman, Paul; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Landwehr, Susan M.; Chapman,
Tom
Subject: EPSA Press Release and New Brochure/Study
Wholesale Competition Contributed to Trend of
Lower Power Prices, According to New EPSA Study
Washington, D.C., July 23, 2001 -- Calls for a return to cost-plus rate
regulation in the wake of the California power crisis are misplaced,
according to an independent study released today that found that competitive
markets contributed to a 36 percent decline in retail electricity prices
among surveyed utilities.
"That decrease is in sharp contrast to the increases that consumers
experienced in the days of solely cost-plus rate regulation," said Electric
Power Supply Association President Lynne H. Church, who released the findings
during a media luncheon in conjunction with the group's summer membership
meeting. "This analysis is evidence that we should continue to move forward
toward more competition in order to apply downward pressure on prices."
The study: "Assessing the 'Good Old Days' of Cost-Plus Regulation," analyzed
sales data for 60 of the nation's investor-owned utilities during 1985-1999,
when traditional cost-plus rate regulation began evolving toward more
competition. Complete sales figures for 2000 were not yet available when the
study was completed. The study was commissioned by EPSA and conducted by
Craig Roach, Ph.D., principal of Boston Pacific Co.
"In the wake of the California power crisis, some people have expressed a
longing for a return to the 'good' old days of cost-plus regulation, but
those days were far from good," Roach said. "People seem to forget that, in
the days of cost-plus regulation between 1970 and 1985, inflation-adjusted
electricity prices actually increased 25 percent for residential customers
and increased 86 percent for industrial/commercial customers."
"So much for the good old days," Church said. "The price increases under
cost-plus regulation were precisely what drove the start of electricity
competition in the early and mid-1980s."
During the 1985-1999 period, according to the analysis, inflation-adjusted
electricity prices decreased an average 30 percent for residential customers
and 36 percent for industrial/commercial customers.
"We should not allow the problems in California to cast a false shadow on
competition," Church said. "The evidence presented in this study makes it
clear that it would be counterproductive and unwise to go back to the old
ways."
"It is important to understand that what happened in California resulted, in
part, from market rules that prohibited basic risk management," Roach said.
"Specifically, utilities were required to take on the risk of selling at a
fixed price to customers, but not allowed to manage that risk by arranging
contracts with fixed-price suppliers or use other risk management tools.
Managing risk appropriately benefits consumers, and risk management is more
efficient and effective in a truly competitive regime."
"This study bolsters our belief that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
should continue to move expeditiously toward more efficient wholesale
markets, states should continue to move quickly toward opening their retail
power markets, and Congress should quickly adopt comprehensive legislation to
help them along," Church said.
-EPSA-
Note: A copy of the complete study is available at
www.bostonpacific.com/powerprices.
=====================================
|
4,118 |
Subject: CalPX:High Summer Pwr Prices Mostly From Fundamentals
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2175.
=====================================
CalPX:High Summer Pwr Prices Mostly From Fundamentals
By Mark Golden
10/04/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- High electricity prices this summer in California were
the result of market fundamentals and structure, rather than market
manipulation by particular participants, according to a preliminary report by
the California Power Exchange.
Rising demand in the state and in the western U.S. overall combined with a
lack of new generators to push wholesale prices to levels about three times
as high as prices last summer, according to the preliminary report obtained
by Dow Jones Newswires.
And the price rise was predictable, according to the report.
Citing hot weather from May to July in California and the Southwest, lower
hydroelectric supplies in the Northwest, higher natural gas prices, higher
prices for nitrogen oxide emission allowances, the report says that "reserve
margins during peak hours in May and June in the Western Systems Coordinating
Council region dropped to a thin 4% to 6%, compared to the forecast 17% to
20%."
"Price movements in California and the WSCC are consistent with analysis by
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which has demonstrated a high
correlation between low capacity reserve margins and high spot prices in
other regions of the U.S.," the report says.
While the CalPX recommends changes to its market rules, it says that prices
were sometimes higher in other parts of the western U.S. than in California
this summer, further evidence of a genuine market imbalance between supply
and demand.
The CalPX market flaws, however, "provided incentives to suppliers to
speculate on receiving higher prices in the Real-Time and Ancillary Services
markets (which are operated by the California Independent System Operator) by
moving their supply to those markets, leaving less supply in the CalPX
Day-Ahead market. These design flaws need to be addressed," the report says.
Although suppliers had incentives to move power to the highest-priced
markets, the CalPX found no "consistent pattern by individual participants or
participant category. As a result, it is difficult to single out any one
group as the force driving prices."
CalPX will send the final report to various bodies investigating the
California wholesale electricity market, including the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
California Attorney General, the California Electricity Oversight Board and
the state legislature.
Its findings may not sit well politically with some of those bodies,
according to one source. California utilities, Gov. Gray Davis, and various
legislators and regulators have been blaming independent power generators -
"out-of-state" companies that bought big generating stations from the
utilities over the past three years - for market manipulation and price
gouging. Those groups hope to build a case with the FERC that would force
suppliers to refund some of their big gains this summer back to California's
utilities and to the customers in the San Diego area, who have received high
electric bills.
Instead, the CalPX's preliminary report proposes corrections that are
relatively modest, such as increasing demand responsiveness, removing
barriers to new generation, proportionally allocating out-of-market purchase
costs to the utilities that underscheduled power purchases and encouraging
utilities to buy more power in the forward market.
As ordered by state legislation to deregulate the electric utility industry
in California, the regulated utility units of PG&E Corp (PCG), Edison
International (EIX) and Sempra Energy (SRE) purchase the power they need one
day in advance through the CalPX and make any last-minute purchases through
the California ISO.
By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires
201-938-4604; [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,119 |
Subject: AP - Calif. Reconsiders On Utility Fees
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2457.
=====================================
Tuesday October 17, 9:17 pm Eastern Time
Calif. Reconsiders On Utility Fees
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Business Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California regulators agreed Tuesday to reconsider
whether utilities can charge customers for the billions of dollars in losses
that piled up during a summer of soaring electricity prices.
Responding to an emergency petition by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and
Southern California Edison Co. [AMEX:SCEq - news], the California Public
Utilities Commission left open the possibility of reversing five prior
decisions that blocked the companies from recovering the losses from
customers.
Regulators turned down the utilities' request for an immediate stay of those
past decisions, but the mere chance of rate relief may be enough to allow
PG&E and SoCal Edison to dodge a possible bullet in the stock market.
Had the PUC reaffirmed its previous decision, the utilities probably would
have had to write off several billion dollars in losses on their financial
statements in the third or fourth quarter.
Disclosures about the likely losses almost certainly would have been made in
a third-quarter Securities and Exchange Commission filing due by mid-November.
If the utilities were forced to make grim financial disclosures, ``it would
be very negative for the stocks,'' said Carol Coale, a utility industry
analyst for Prudential Securities in Houston. ``Right now, the fate of these
utilities is in the hands of their regulators and their bankers.''
Coale estimated PG&E faced the prospect of writing off as much as $3 billion
in losses this year.
PG&E had little to say about Tuesday's decision.
``This is a very serious issue and we want to thoroughly review the material
before commenting further,'' said PG&E spokesman Ron Low.
Consumer activists blasted the PUC's decision.
``This is a sop to the financial markets,'' said Nettie Hoge, executive
director for TURN, a San Francisco watchdog group. ``By reopening this case,
the PUC is unleashing a tsunami of lawyers that is going to come in and argue
why we should have to pay for these losses.''
TURN plans to release a report Wednesday contending that California utilities
have generated an additional $18 billion in revenue from deregulation, more
than enough to offset recent losses.
Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, accused the PUC and Gov. Gray Davis' administration of ``caving in to
the utilities. These companies just want to be able to go to Wall Street and
say they still have a chance of getting this money back.''
PUC President Loretta Lynch did not return a call seeking comment.
Rosenfield said his group will ask the SEC to investigate whether accounting
laws require the utilities to write off their losses immediately.
San Francisco-based PG&E says it has lost $2.2 billion this year from a
freeze on electric rates imposed as part of industry deregulation.
Rosemead-based SoCal Edison places its losses from the freeze at about $2
billion.
The utilities are losing money because they must buy the power in the
wholesale market, where prices have unexpectedly tripled and, at times,
quadrupled over the past year. The freeze on their customer rates isn't
scheduled to expire until March 2002.
To insulate themselves, the utilities this week filed a petition with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeking to cap wholesale prices for
electricity at $100-per-megawatt hour. The current cap in California is
$250-per-megawatt hour.
The chasm between the utilities' wholesale costs and retail rates is hurting
the companies' standing on Wall Street.
In a filing with the PUC last week, SoCal Edison noted that ``the investment
community is expressing growing concern'' about the utility's ability to
recover its losses. SoCal Edison urged regulators to ``take action which
will, at a minimum, send the right signal to the financial markets.''
=====================================
|
4,120 |
Subject: SoCal Ed May Seek Temporary Return To Cost-Based Rates
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2083.
=====================================
SoCal Ed May Seek Temporary Return To Cost-Based Rates
By Jason Leopold
09/29/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Southern California Edison may ask federal
regulators next week to allow the state's electricity market to temporarily
return to regulation until the market produces lower wholesale power rates, a
company executive told Dow Jones Newswires.
In addition, a filing expected before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission by SoCal Edison, a unit of Edison International (EIX), will ask
for an immediate investigation into California's power market, different from
an investigation FERC is currently conducting here.
"This (investigation) would request a formal proceeding where federal
regulators would take testimony," said Bob Foster, senior vice president of
public affairs for SoCal Edison. "This would be a much more vigorous
proceeding" than the probe federal regulators are currently conducting into
California's power market.
"This market is not producing just and reasonable rates," Foster said. "It is
producing power prices that are two to three times higher than the rest of
the country ... the market is in dire need of a fix," Foster said.
Foster said the FERC filing is still a work in progress, but one of the
solutions the utility plans on including in the filing is no longer having
the market dictate the cost of wholesale power.
Instead, Foster said the utility favors a temporary return to regulation in
the form of cost-based rates, where the price of wholesale power is decided
by how much it costs for a generation unit to produce the electricity.
"That's the way they used to do it in the old days," Foster said, adding that
the utility will include a variety of solutions to FERC on how to repair the
state's wholesale power market. "It's a return to regulation, but going back
toward a cost-based system is viewed only as an interim measure."
Foster said if FERC does not take immediate action and the market continues
as is "they will have unbelievable amount of rebellion on their hands."
He said the utility is also deciding whether to ask FERC to impose price caps
on wholesale power or bid caps on other markets operated by the state's Power
Exchange.
Utility Sinking Deeper Into Debt
Foster said SoCal Edison is being forced to borrow millions of dollars to
cover the difference between what it pays for wholesale power and what it
charges its customers during the rate freeze.
The company's stock has been taking a beating in recent weeks as Wall Street
learned about the utility's $2 billion debt.
Current wholesale power prices are about 20 cents/KWh, but the utility
charges its customers about 3 to 4 cents/KWh.
That could end if SoCal Edison convinces state regulators that it recovered
its stranded costs related to the sale of its power plants.
The utility's recent filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission
suggests that the pending sale of its hydro generating assets will allow it
to end the rate freeze and start charging its customers market-based rates.
But Foster said the company wants to protect its customers.
"We believe the rate freeze is going to end sooner or later and consumers
cannot be exposed to a volatile market," Foster said. "Our primary goal is to
protect consumers and provide them with affordable, reliable and predictable
rates."
Still, the utility is going to have to convince state regulators of its
intentions. Foster said the company will file with the Public Utilities
Commission soon, possibly to lift the rate freeze, based on the pending sale
of its hydro assets, and to raise its rates.
"We don't want to have California in a state of chaos," Foster said. "We hope
to have a cooperative agreement with state regulators when the time comes."
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,121 |
Subject: Everyone's to blame but the Governor
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10247.
=====================================
California governor blames utilities for blackouts
By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (March 21, 2001 8:10 a.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) -
Gov. Gray Davis said the state's two largest utilities are partly to blame
for this week's widespread blackouts because they failed to pay millions of
dollars owed to environmentally friendly power generators.
Davis said the utilities took money from customers while failing to pay the
alternative plants, which use renewable forms of energy like steam and
natural gas to generate electricity.
The state has been spending about $45 million a day since January to buy
power for customers of Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and
Electric Co., which are so credit-poor that suppliers refuse to sell to them.
"It's wrong and irresponsible of the utilities to pocket this money and not
pay the generators," the governor said at a Capitol news conference Tuesday.
"They've acted irresponsibly and immorally and it has to stop."
The state lost about 3,100 megawatts, or enough electricity to power 3.1
million homes, on Tuesday from alternative energy plants that say they can't
afford to keep operating because the utilities haven't paid their bills in
weeks.
Davis said the PUC planned to issue an order next week directing the
utilities to pre-pay future bills to the alternative plants.
PG&E called Gray's statements "inappropriate and unjustified," adding that it
was negotiating a payment plan with the suppliers. Edison said it is intent
on paying creditors and working with the Public Utilities Commission to pay
the plants for future power sales.
Edison and PG&E say they have lost more than $13 billion since last June to
climbing wholesale electricity prices, which the state's 1996 deregulation
law prevents them from passing on to ratepayers.
Keepers of the state's power grid were cautiously optimistic that California
might get through Wednesday without another day of rolling blackouts after
two idle plants were returned to service.
"Never say never - but it appears we are going to be in better shape tomorrow
(Wednesday) and for the rest of the week," said Patrick Dorinson, a spokesman
for the California Independent System Operator, which oversees most of the
state's power grid.
About a half-million customers were hit by Tuesday's blackouts, which snarled
traffic and plunged schools and businesses into darkness from San Diego to
the Oregon border.
On Tuesday, Assembly Republican leader Bill Campbell called on PUC President
Loretty Lunch to resign. Lynch was appointed by Davis.
Lynch couldn't be reached for comment, but a spokesman for the governor
dismissed Campbell's complaints.
Meanwhile, a leading lawmaker on energy issues said the PUC may soon have to
raise rates by about 15 percent to cover the state's costs and its utilities'
bills.
"My sense is that people will appreciate having some certainty and being able
to plan for it," said Assemblyman Fred Keeley. "They don't have to like it,
but I think they'll appreciate it."
Davis has said he is confident the utilities and the state can pay their
bills without further rate increases.
In the meantime, the ISO is counting on conservation to avoid more rolling
blackouts. Dorinson estimated that conservation accounted for about 900
megawatts in savings during Tuesday's peak usage.
"That probably was the difference today in helping us avoid any rolling
blackouts late into the evening," Dorinson said.
Tuesday's outages began at 9:30 a.m. and continued in 90-minute waves until
about 2 p.m., when the ISO lifted its blackout order. They were blamed for at
least one serious traffic accident.
The blackouts were caused by a combination of problems, including
unseasonably warm weather, reduced electricity imports from the Pacific
Northwest, numerous power plants being shut down for repairs and the loss of
power from alternative generators.
=====================================
|
4,122 |
Subject: EPSA study attributes lower electricity prices to competition
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29005.
=====================================
Wholesale Competition Contributed to Trend of Lower Power Prices, According
to New EPSA Study
PR Newswire
07/23/01, 1:00p
(Copyright , 2001, PR Newswire)
WASHINGTON, July 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Calls for a return to cost-plus rate
regulation in the wake of the California power crisis are misplaced,
according to an independent study released today that found that competitive
markets contributed to a 36 percent decline in retail electricity prices
among surveyed utilities.
"That decrease is in sharp contrast to the increases that consumers
experienced in the days of solely cost-plus rate regulation," said Electric
Power Supply Association President Lynne H. Church, who released the findings
during a media luncheon in conjunction with the group's summer membership
meeting. "This analysis is evidence that we should continue to move forward
toward more competition in order to apply downward pressure on prices."
The study: "Assessing the 'Good Old Days' of Cost-Plus Regulation," analyzed
sales data for 60 of the nation's investor-owned utilities during 1985-1999,
when traditional cost-plus rate regulation began evolving toward more
competition. Complete sales figures for 2000 were not yet available when the
study was completed. The study was commissioned by EPSA and conducted by
Craig Roach, Ph.D, principal of Boston Pacific Co.
"In the wake of the California power crisis, some people have expressed a
longing for a return to the 'good' old days of cost-plus regulation, but
those days were far from good," Roach said. "People seem to forget that, in
the days of cost-plus regulation between 1970 and 1985, inflation-adjusted
electricity prices actually increased 25 percent for residential customers
and increased 86 percent for industrial/commercial customers."
"So much for the good old days," Church said. "The price increases under
cost-plus regulation were precisely what drove the start of electricity
competition in the early and mid-1980s."
During the 1985-1999 period, according to the analysis, inflation-adjusted
electricity prices decreased an average 30 percent for residential customers
and 36 percent for industrial/commercial customers.
"We should not allow the problems in California to cast a false shadow on
competition," Church said. "The evidence presented in this study makes it
clear that it would be counterproductive and unwise to go back to the old
ways."
"It is important to understand that what happened in California resulted, in
part, from market rules that prohibited basic risk management," Roach said.
"Specifically, utilities were required to take on the risk of selling at a
fixed price to customers, but not allowed to manage that risk by arranging
contracts with fixed-price suppliers or use other risk management tools.
Managing risk appropriately benefits consumers, and risk management is more
efficient and effective in a truly competitive regime."
"This study bolsters our belief that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
should continue to move expeditiously toward more efficient wholesale
markets, states should continue to move quickly toward opening their retail
power markets, and Congress should quickly adopt comprehensive legislation to
help them along," Church said.
Note: A copy of the complete study is available at
www.bostonpacific.com/powerprices .
EPSA is the national trade association representing independent power
producers and power marketers active in U.S. and global power markets. As
suppliers of reliable, clean, competitively priced electricity, EPSA members
seek to bring the benefits of competition to all electricity customers.
Contact: Mark Stultz, 202-628-8200 Audrey Duff, 202-354-8205
/CONTACT: Mark Stultz of Electric Power Supply Association, +1-202-628-8200;
or Audrey Duff, +1-202-354-8205, for Electric Power Supply Association/
/Web site: http://www.epsa.org
http://www.bostonpacific.com/powerprices /
=====================================
|
4,123 |
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON', '[email protected]', 'Stuart', 'George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/7917.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/21/2000 05:28 PM -----
Paul Kaufman@ECT
12/21/2000 03:28 PM
To: George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Stuart
Staley/LON/ECT@ECT, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Roger
Yang/SFO/EES@EES@ENRON, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer
Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Eric Letke/DUB/EES@EES@ENRON, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
Brief summary of the proposed decision:
1. Commission will issue a final decision on rate adjustments and the end of
the rate freeze on January 4. To reach the final decision, the Commission
will hold expedited hearings beginning December 27 to address:
a. when rate freeze will end;
b. rate adjustments neccesary to maintain utility solvency;
c. whether utilities should retain remaining assets;
d. whether utilies should use their retained assets to serve native load
(and what rate adjustments are necessary to accomplish such a result).
2. Commission will take action to maintain solvency of utilities and the
ability of the utilities to continue to provide service at just and
reasonable rates.
We will give a full report on the conference call scheduled below.
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT on 12/21/2000 01:29
PM ---------------------------
Alan Comnes
12/21/2000 01:11 PM
To: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Stuart
Staley/LON/ECT@ECT, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Roger
Yang/SFO/EES@EES@ENRON, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer
Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Eric Letke/DUB/EES@EES@ENRON, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
Here's the order that has just been posted. My understanding is the CPUC
will take this up at 2 p.m.
GAC
Joseph Alamo@ENRON
12/21/2000 10:30 AM
To: George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Stuart
Staley/LON/ECT@ECT, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES,
Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Eric
Letke/DUB/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: California PUC Decision Info/Update
On behalf of Jeff Dasovich, please note:
the California PUC decision will be available on
the PUC website @ 1:00 PM PST.
The Commission will continue the meeting @ 2:00 PM PST
to address the issue.
Thanks,
Joseph Alamo
Sr. Admin. Asst.
Government Affairs - The Americas
San Francisco CA
=====================================
|
4,124 |
Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -- Letter to Governor Davis
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1393.
=====================================
Delaney-
The letter looks fine, but there is an incorrect reference on page 12
about the risk management tools. It states that SDG&E has been granted
authority to enter into bilateral contracts, the CPUC has not yet issued that
decision. The SDG&E proposal is on calendar for 9/21, when it is likely it
will be approved under the terms you reference.
Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: Delaney Hunter [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 5:03 PM
To: Aaron Thomas (E-mail); 'Allan Lippincott'; Ann Cohn (E-mail); 'Ann
Watson'; Anna Ferrera (E-mail); 'Art Carter'; 'assistant for John Fielder';
Barbara Barkovich (E-mail); 'Becky Kilbourne'; Bill Booth (E-mail); 'Bill
Dombrowski'; Bill Keese (E-mail); Bill Zobel (E-mail); 'Bob Foster'; 'Bob
Houston'; Carolyn McIntyre (E-mail); Carolyn Veal-Hunter (E-mail); Catherine
Hackney (E-mail); Charles Bacchi (E-mail); 'Craig Brown'; Dan Carroll
(E-mail); 'Denice Cazalet'; Dennis Price (E-mail); 'Denny Samuel'; 'Dominic
DiMare'; Dorothy Rothrock (E-mail); 'Ed Yates'; Eloy Garcia (E-mail); Evelyn
Elsesser (E-mail); Gary Heath (E-mail); 'Gordon McDonald'; 'Jack Flanigan';
Jack Gualco (E-mail); 'Jack Stewart'; 'James Boyd'; Jan Smutny-Jones
(E-mail); Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); 'Jerry Jordan'; Jim Cassie (E-mail); Jim
Groniger (E-mail); Joe Lyons (E-mail); 'Joe Ronan'; John Bridges (E-mail);
'John Fielder'; John Fistolera (E-mail); John Larrea (E-mail); John Rozsa
(E-mail); John White (E-!
mail); 'Joseph Alamo'; 'Julia Wright'; Karen Edson (E-mail); Karen Jarrell
(E-mail); Karen Koyano (E-mail); 'Karen Lindh'; Karen Mills (E-mail); 'Kari
Harteloo'; 'Kathy Brandenburg'; Kay Grosulak (E-mail); Keith McCrea (E-mail);
Kevin Lynch (E-mail); Kevin Smith (E-mail); Lawrence Lingbloom (E-mail);
Lenny Goldberg (E-mail); Louis Szablya (E-mail); Marc Joseph (E-mail); Marwan
Masri (E-mail); Mary McDonald (E-mail); Michael Alcantar (E-mail); Mike
Florio (E-mail); 'Mike Kahl'; Mona Petrochko (E-mail); Pete Conaty (E-mail);
'Phil Nails'; Phil Stohr (E-mail); Ralph Cavanagh (E-mail); Randy Chinn
(E-mail); Ray Thompson (E-mail); 'Rick Counihan'; Robert Berry (E-mail);
Robin Larson (E-mail); Sheryl Carter (E-mail); Steve Pike (E-mail); Stu
Wilson (E-mail); 'Sue Mara'; Susan Reeder (E-mail); Terry Winter (E-mail);
Thomas Dinkel (E-mail); Tim Schmelzer (E-mail); 'Tommy Ross'; 'Tony Braun';
Victoria Schaefer (E-mail)
Subject: IMPORTANT -- Letter to Governor Davis
Folks-
At today's meeting, those Group members who attended agreed that we should
indeed send the letter with changes reflecting the new legislation. Attached
is the newest draft of such a letter. We need to send this letter out FRIDAY
so in order to do that please look over the letter carefully and let me know
if your organization wishes to be included as a signatory. I need every set
of eyes out there to look this letter over for spelling, grammar and
content -- my eyes have seen it too many times and are apt to miss things.
So, here is the process ---
Let me know of any minor changes ASAP. If there are content changes please
email them to the ENTIRE group for sign off. Please understand that we want
to send this FRIDAY so we do not have a lot of time to make changes. When I
have a final draft I will ask people to fax signatures or send originals to
me by Friday.Thank you all for your help with this letter. We could not have
done it with out you.
We will be scheduling our next general meeting for mid October. Also, we
have finalized the dates for the Annual Retreat and will be sending out
packets with all the details next week. DJ and I are working on the agenda
so if you have a specific topic you would like covered please let us know.
As always, please send me an email or give me a call if you have any
concerns or questions about the letter or any other matter.
Thanks,
Delaney
<< File: ltr to governor -- options list.doc >>
=====================================
|
4,125 |
Subject: Extraordinary Session - Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8294.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/11/2001 07:56 PM -----
=09Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
=0901/11/2001 05:19 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]>, Joseph Alamo <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman=20
<[email protected]>, David Parquet <[email protected]>, Marcie=
=20
Milner <[email protected]>, Tim Belden <[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro=
=20
<[email protected]>, Jim Steffes <[email protected]>, Alan Comnes=
=20
<[email protected]>, Chris Calger <[email protected]>, Mary Hain=20
<[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Extraordinary Session - Update
MEMORANDUM RE FIRST EXTRAORDINARY COMMITTEE SESSION
From: Sandi McCubbin
Mike Day
January 11, 2001
Note: This memo will supplement the committee analysis which you will
receive by separate fax.
ABX1-5 Keeley re the governance of the ISO and PX was discussed first.
A number of possible amendments were discussed by members. Suggested
amendments included extending the term of members beyond one year,
increasing the number of members beyond 3, whether there should be
senate confirmation of ISO and PX board members, or at least voting
representation for the legislature on the Energy Oversight Board which
will approve the ISO/PX members. There was also discussion of whether
FERC would approve of this new governance structure. Another
discussion centered on whether the positions should be full time, as
opposed to part time, and how to define =01&affiliated=018 in conjunction w=
ith
the bill=01,s ban on members of the ISO and PX being affiliated with a
market participant.
Support for the bill: Consumers Union, EOB on behalf of the
administration, CalPIRG, PX, TURN, UCAN, ORA, Coalition of Utility
Employees.
Opposition: ISO, which raised issues regarding incompatibility with
FERC orders and concern that the bill would lead to lengthy litigation.
They suggested that if the ISO and PX boards were appointed solely by
the California governor that FERC would not find that legally sufficient
to be =01&independent=018.
ABX1-6 Dutra/Pescetti addressed retained utility generation assets and
commission regulation of same. The bill as written is merely a clean up
to clarify that the CPUC would retain jurisdiction over utility
generation after it is valued for purposes of calculating CTC=01*until and
unless the CPUC gives permission for the plant to be sold under Section
851. The discussion evolved into a lengthy inquiry over the different
regulatory schemes for utility and non-utility generation. Assemblyman
Leonard questioned whether it was efficient to have a market where a
portion of the generation was regulated and another portion
unregulated. More and more members skirted the subject of attempting to
regulate the non-utility generators within the state. In supporting
testimony, CPUC President Lynch essentially asked for jurisdiction over
such generators, stating that CPUC inspectors were denied access to an
AES plant at Redondo Beach for 9 hours during an ISO alert yesterday.
Chmn. Wright asked Lynch to assemble a list of the regulatory powers she
would seek.
In support: CPUC, TURN, UCAN, CUE, PG&E, SCE
PG&E agreed with Lynch and also argued that the Legislature should
revisit the exemption regulation for marketers and non-utility
generators contained in Code section 216(I). PG& also had suggested
technical amendments, which were not released, which dealt with
confirming that Section 367 still requires market valuation and that the
CPUC can set the ratemaking for such retained assets.
We have talked with the author about meeting with him after the
amendments are available. No amendments were voted on for any of these
bills until they are brought up in the Senate. Thus there was only
limited discussion of amendments.
=====================================
|
4,126 |
Subject: Note the exemptions to the $100 price caps
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2596.
=====================================
FYI
Press Release
California ISO Offers Market Stabilization Proposal
Calls for Forum for Reaching Consensus on Market Power Mitigation
FOLSOM, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 20, 2000--Hoping to trigger consensus
building that will lead to solutions to volatile energy prices, the
California Independent System Operator (California ISO) filed a Market
Stabilization Proposal with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
today, Friday, Oct. 20, 2000.
The plan was unveiled during a news conference at the ISO's Folsom Control
Center this morning. California ISO CEO Terry Winter described the plan as a
discussion platform -- a document not etched in stone but rather introduced
as a means for putting the brakes on market prices and finding long-term
solutions that will protect consumers from high bills while stimulating new
investment in power plants.
The California ISO is asking FERC to consider the following regulatory steps:
Institute Payment Cap of $100 in all markets with the following exemptions:
Generators that can prove they will lose money if capped on that rate
Generators that contract 70 percent of their supply to serve California
customers
Renewable generation -- Generation facilities less than 50 megawatts -- New
power plants -- Imported power
The existing $250 per megawatt hour price cap would still exist and serve as
the absolute price ceiling for suppliers exempt from the $100 payment cap.
``We cannot simply apply a short-term patch for market power, without also
addressing the underlying problems causing sky-high prices,'' said California
ISO CEO Terry Winter. ``Consumers have little control over how they can
respond to high prices. There are traffic jams on the transmission systems
that keep us from moving electricity efficiently around the state, not to
mention the fact there are not enough megawatts to meet the needs of
consumers. And, the lack of forward contracting scheduling means the
California ISO is making up for huge shortfalls ten minutes before the power
is consumed.''
Along with providing the incentive for generators (sellers) to sign formal
contracts, the California ISO also recommends requiring utilities (buyers) to
contract for 85 percent of their customer requirement for power in advance of
when it's needed.
The lack of adequate forward contracting also adds to an operational problem
facing the ISO -- the fact that 20-30 percent of total consumption is
frequently bought and sold in the ISO's Real-Time Market, which was designed
to handle only five percent of the electricity traded in wholesale markets.
This problem -- known as under-scheduling -- is also addressed in the ISO's
filing by a real-time trading charge.
``Because of the visibility of the ISO's markets -- the fact that we are so
public -- and as a result of the distortion of the intended market design,
the ISO has been called upon to take on responsibilities it was never
intended to handle,'' said Winter. ``This proposal would take the ISO back to
its original mission of operating the markets of last resort, allowing ISO
operators to focus on maintaining reliability of the power grid.''
The California ISO is chartered by the state to manage the flow of
electricity along the long-distance, high-voltage power lines that make up
the bulk of California's transmission systems. The not-for-profit public
benefit corporation assumed the responsibility in March 1998 when California
opened its energy markets to competition and the state's investor-owned
utilities turned their private transmission power lines over the California
ISO to manage. The mission of the California ISO is to safeguard the reliable
delivery of electricity and ensure equal access to an open-market electron
highway that spans 12,500 circuit miles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Contact:
California ISO
Patrick Dorinson, 888/516-NEWS
=====================================
|
4,127 |
Subject: RE: RE-SCHEDULE NOTICE - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29294.
=====================================
As we get closer to the date, we will again be making dinner reservations for
all interested. I'll request RSVP's to dinner in early August.
Lysa
-----Original Message-----
From: Perrino, Dave
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 3:09 PM
To: Perrino, Dave
Cc: Walton, Steve; Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@Enron; Nicolay, Christi; Davidson,
Debra; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Alvarez, Ray; Novosel, Sarah; Hall,
Steve C.; Denne, Karen; Tracy, Lysa; Davidson, Debra; Landwehr, Susan M.;
Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE-SCHEDULE NOTICE - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Importance: High
Dear All,
As a result of the recent volume of activity in Washington DC, with mediation
proceedings, refund discussions and the need for key members of our team that
need to attend these meetings, it has been decided to re-schedule the meeting
of the Western Government Affairs group to Wednesday, September 12, in
Portland, 10AM-5PM.
For those of you who had planned on attending, I am sorry to cause you this
inconvenience. Hopefully for those of you who wanted to attend, but
couldn't, this will offer you the opportunity to participate on September 12.
Due to the volatility of policy related issues in our region, I would expect
there may be some modifications to our current agenda below. As these
changes occur I will communicate this information to you.
Any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Kind Regards,
Dave
From: Dave Perrino 07/20/2001 09:36 AM
To: Steve Walton/ENRON@enronXgate, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@Enron, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debra Davidson/ENRON@enronXgate, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve C
Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@Enron, Karen
Denne/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Lysa Tracy/ENRON@enronXgate, Debra Davidson/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: Draft Agenda for - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Below is a draft agenda for our planned meeting on Wednesday August 1 in
Portland Oregon from 10-5. Tim Belden will be joining us from11:30-1PM
(thanks Debra) and the agenda is taking Tim's time into account. We will be
meeting in the Mt. Hood Room, a working lunch will be provided (thanks
Lysa).
If you would like to modify the agenda, please send your edits to me.
10:00 Meeting called to order - Brief Introductions - All
10:10 Overview of Western Government Affairs Priorities (Jim or designee?)
11:00 What are the short-term needs of our Western Commerical Staff? (Alan?
)
11:30 Brief Overview of July 12 Rulings and discussion of the potential
impacts on the West (Ray/Christi/Sarah? and Group)
12:30 RTO/ISO Status Update (in alphabetical order)
CAISO (Sue)
DSTAR (Dave)
RTO West (Steve)
2:00 RTO Strategy discussion "How we move forward and how we should leverage
the recent FERC July 12 rulings" (Group/Jim?)
3:30 Meetings, RTO's and WSCC - Ranking and Coverage coordination (Group)
4:30 Northwest OASIS "Enhancements" - Solicitation of Trader Comments (Dave)
(Note, Alan, can you please ask Diana, Sean and Bill Williams III to see if
they can schedule time to attend?)
While developing this agenda from everyone's input I was thinking that NERC
is beginning to assert more and more influence (good or bad) on the entire
industry. I would like to know if our group feels it would be useful to
invite either Charles Yeung or Andy Rodriquez to our meeting to overview NERC
activities and or Electronic Scheduling?
Also, if Steve Hall has any legal or contract issues he'd like to discuss
during our meeting I'll be happy to add time for that.
Again, as noted above this is a draft and as you can see I have
un-democratically nominated (suggested) folks for leading various
discussions. Any comments or confirmations of commitment to lead an agenda
item would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for everyone's input.
Kind Regards,
Dave
=====================================
|
4,128 |
Subject: FW: APX Comments on Letter to the Governor.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Robert Berry (E-mail); Edward G. Cazalet']
File: dasovich-j/ab_1890_group/3.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Cazalet [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 9:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Robert Berry (E-mail); Edward G. Cazalet
Subject: APX Comments on Letter to the Governor.
Would you please distribute the attached APX comments on the letter to the
Governor to the AB1890 list? The comments are attached both as a Word file
and below in the body of this e-mail.
A core purpose of restructuring through AB1890 was to decrease reliance on
regulation and increase reliance on the market to allocate resources in the
California electric power market. However, as it is now written, the letter
to the Governor does not include any direct reference to the way forward
markets can address the problem of high and volatile prices.
Several reports have expressed serious reservations about the CalPX and
CAISO use of "call auctions". An example of a call auction is the CalPX's
daily auction that sets a single price for electricity in each hour of the
next day. The CAISO uses several call auctions for real-time energy and
ancillary service procurement.
A call auction provides no opportunity for market participants to react to
each other's bids. A call auction lacks the feedback from offer to
counter-offer which is the source of efficiency in forward markets. Because
a call auction lacks feedback and clears at a single price, it is more
likely that attempts to manipulate the single price will be more successful
and will have a greater impact because all transactions are at the same
price.
Instead, all other commodity markets rely on continuously traded forward
markets, which allow participants to use price feedback and gradually
develop their contract positions.
APX recommends that the Letter include the following:
The CAISO has recently announced its intent to acquire up to 3000 MW of
ancillary services through forward contracts of at least a year. The CPUC
has recently granted both PGE and SCE the opportunity to make contracts
through 2005 to serve their load. These policies represent a wise shift
from the almost exclusive reliance on short-term (day-head and hourly)
markets by both the CAISO and the UDCs. However, adoption of such policies
will tend to create a bifurcated market with very short-term markets and
long-term contracts.
In most commodity markets, participants can trade a variety of contracts of
different duration. Contracts are standardized so that the published prices
of these traded contracts are meaningful. Trade occurs continuously, which
allows continuous price discovery. The efficiency of the power market
improves considerably when such continuous forward trading occurs and the
opportunities for price manipulation are less. And the existence of such
forward markets provide the basis to establish the prudence of both forward
and spot purchases of power by the UDCs.
As an example, encouraging loads to participate in continuous forward
markets will dampen price volatility because as the forward price rises load
will begin to reduce its demand by not contracting or by selling back
previously contracted positions. Generators can use forward markets to
support decisions to invest in new power plants and properly time
maintenance decisions to reduce the impacts on prices. Open, continuous
forward markets with published prices will allow all West Coast buyers and
sellers to contribute to market stability and lower prices in California.
The CAISO does not need to provide such continuous forward markets but can
encourage their development and use by encouraging inter-SC trades and
self-provision of ancillary services.
==============================
Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D.
Chairman
Automated Power Exchange, Inc.
TechMart Building, Suite 522
5201 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Company Voice : (408) 517-2100
Voice :(408) 517-2102
Fax: :(408) 517- 2985
E-mail : [email protected]
Web Page: www.apx.com
- Forward Markets.doc
=====================================
|
4,129 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #31
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12508.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW061801.pdf>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 5.1% Last week our IPP composite fell 5.1%, outperforming the
NASDAQ (-8.1%), but lagging behind the S&P 500 (-4.0%). AES Corp. was the
strongest performer in the group, rising 3.8%. NRG Energy was the weakest
performer, falling 11%.
2. Investors Focus on Today's FERC Meeting Putting pressure on stock
prices, investors expressed concern regarding the FERC's special upcoming
meeting, scheduled for today (6/18). At today's meeting the commission is
expected to extend the scope of its previous April 25 California market
mitigation order. In particular, we expect FERC to: 1) Extend floating
power price caps to all hours; and, 2. Extend floating caps to other western
states.
3. Minimal Impact on IPPs We believe the expansion of the FERC's current
market mitigation plan will have an immaterial impact on the Independent
Power Producers with California exposure-AES, CPN, MIR, NRG, and RRI. Our
reasons are as follows: 1) The bulk of their capacity is sold forward; 2.
The FERC's methodology is benign; and, 3) Valuations already reflect
political uncertainty and normalized power prices.
4. NRG Hosts Conference Call On Friday (6/15), NRG hosted a conference call
to address investor concerns surrounding near-term equity needs, pending
acquisitions and recent regulatory developments. On the call management
noted that: 1) Barring a major acquisition, it will not issue equity in the
near-term; 2) NRG's pending acquisition of 1,767 MW of generation capacity
from Conectiv should close by June 30; and, 3) Expansion of the FERC's
Western market mitigation measures should not impact NRG's performance.
Also on the call, management reaffirmed its previous 2001 EPS guidance of
$1.35. . Trading at 13.2 times our 2002 estimate versus a group average of
16.1 times, NRG represents the best relative value in the IPP group. We
believe this discount is unwarranted and reiterate our Buy rating and $37
price target.
5. Review of ORN Analyst Conference On Tuesday (6/12), Orion Power hosted
its first major investor conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The meeting
featured presentations from 10 senior managers. We do not believe investors
were previously aware of the full breadth and depth of the management team.
While no major announcements were made, the meeting served to confirm that
ORN is on track to achieve its strategic and growth objectives.
6. Coverage of GEG Initiated with a Buy Rating On June 11, 2001 CSFB
initiated on Global Power Equipment Group (GEG) with a Buy rating and a
twelve-month price target of $42. We co-cover GEG with John McGinty--CSFB's
machinery analyst.
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.
- IPW061801.pdf
=====================================
|
4,130 |
Subject: FW: Draft and Alternate Decisions re PX Credit and Suspension of
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Mike; Sanders', 'Vicki; Smith', 'Richard B.', "MDay'; Sharp", '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12463.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C.
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:18 PM
To: 'JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON'; Kingerski, Harry; 'Jeff Dasovich
(E-mail)'; 'Jim Steffes (E-mail)'; Smith, Martin; 'Sue Mara (E-mail)'; Frank,
Robert
Cc: 'MDay'; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Sanders, Richard B.
Subject: RE: Draft and Alternate Decisions re PX Credit and Suspension of
Dire ct Access
The language relating to negative CTC we need taken out of the Bilas draft
begins on page 9 with the paragraph beginning with "We note . . . " through
the first two sentences of the next paragraph to the sentence beginning "As
proclaimed . . . ."
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 3:22 PM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Smith,
Martin; Williams, Robert C.; Sue Mara (E-mail); Frank, Robert
Cc: MDay
Subject: Draft and Alternate Decisions re PX Credit and Suspension of Dire ct
Access
Importance: High
On Friday, June 15th, a Draft Decision (by ALJ Barnett) and an Alternate
Decision (by Commissioner Bilas) were released addressing the suspension of
the PX credit and the suspension of direct access. In short, both the Draft
and the Alternate granted SCE's Petition to suspend payment of the PX credit
as of January 5, 2001. The Draft Decision continues by invoking Section
80110 of the Water Code (enacted under ABX1 1) and suspending new Direct
Access transactions as of July 1, 2001. The Alternate does not suspend
direct access but requests comments on how the Commission can accommodate
the concerns of DWR with respect to continuation of direct access (besides
suspension) without violating Section 80110.
Barnett Draft Decision
The Barnett draft goes through an illustration of the PX credit with the
intent of showing that during the rate freeze period "should a direct access
customer pay less than the PX energy price to its ESP, the direct access
customer is being subsidized by the public utility and, perhaps the
utility's ratepayers." The decision goes on to say, that "we note in the
stipulation between SCE, Enron and WPTF, there is no mention of a cash
refund to direct access customers -- the reference is to a credit." There is
no provision in the stipulation which would require SCE to make a cash
payment in lieu of a credit. "Utility cash which is in short supply, should
be conserved to provide reliable service, not subsidize direct access."
The draft decision continues by suspending DA as of July 1, 2001 and
applying the order to PG&E as well.
Bilas Alternate
The Bilas Alternate goes through a similar analysis with respect to the PX
credit payments (without as much verbiage as to the subsidization of DA
customers). Bilas also makes it clear that while payment of cash is
suspended, "SCE must continue to track and accrue credits for DA customers."
With respect to the suspension of direct access, the Bilas Alternate holds
off. It appends a letter from DWR to the Commission as to its concerns
about the impact of the continuation of Direct Access on the issuance of the
bonds and asks parties to comment thereon. It is letter, DWR has set forth
what it believes will be required in the way of exit fees by DA customers to
allow the issuance of long term bonds with investment grade.
In addition, Bilas is looking for comments on getting away from the PX
credit and going to a bottoms up calculation of DA customer bills.
Comments
Comments on Both the Draft and Alternate are due on Monday the 25th.
Comments on moving to a bottoms up approach are due on July 6th.
Copies of the decisions have been faxed to Sue Mara in SF and Jim Steffes in
Houston. They are also available on the commission's web site under the
"currently open for comment" section. If anyone would like me to fax them a
copy directly, let me know.
Jeanne Bennett
=====================================
|
4,131 |
Subject: FERC RTO week: Market Monitoring Session
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/709.
=====================================
Participants:
-Prof. Charles Cicchetti, Univ. of Southern California
-Comm. Robert Nelson, Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm.
-Marji Phillips, Exelon Power Team (attorney)
-Sonny Popowski, PA Office of Consumer Advocate
-Craig Roach, Boston Pacific
-Anjali Sheffrin, Dir. Market Analysis, Cal ISO
Summary: Market Monitor (MM) should be independent. Too much MM transparency is a problem -- MM function should be done privately to FERC. MM should be an early warning signal.
Specifics:
The morning started on a rather humorous note with Marji Phillips introducing herself as "the guilty party so to speak in front of you" (referencing the PECO/Exelon purported violation of standards of conduct). She stated that it is not the role of the MM to interfere to make sure that power prices are the lowest in each hour -- the MM should monitor the RTO and the markets and be part of a creative solution (without imposing its own MM penalties/mitigation). She used the Midwest price spikes of 98 as an example, and stated that a poor MM would probably have worsened the market solution that was reached without intervention.
Most of the group agreed with Prof. Cicchetti that the MM should not be the policeman, judge and jury. He also stressed the importance of the MM being aware of the interaction of markets (i.e., California: gas, electricity, NOx). As Craig Roach said, the MM should look at more than market power -- it should also look at market conditions and market rules and be a vehicle for innovation. Moreover, other issues are equally important, such as environmental issues and the ability of new entrants to both enter the market and raise capital. Moreover, most markets involve traders (which a market needs). The MM should not "go to the farmer for costs." Markets don't act simply on costs and MMs should not be attempting to run their own market simulation. Spot markets are critical.
Many thought that there should be some standardization of the information provided to the MM. Most agreed that the information should be provided on a confidential basis, especially before any specific problem has been found.
Sonny Popowski stated that the RTO must be truly independent or the MM simply catalogs the market failures.
Comm. Nelson said that the MM should have unfettered access to all costs and should have the ability for "cease and desist" orders. Also, stated that ITCs/transcos should be monitored to the extent that they favor transmission solutions over DG and generation. On the very positive side, he said RTO policy should proceed.
Ms. Sheffrin said that it would be simple to implement a rolling 12 month cost plus 10% competitive benchmark, and prices above this should be mitigated. She said this would allow bidders to "self police" so as to not hit the benchmark. Most of the others disagreed with her, pointing out that a simplistic test such as this does not account for market conditions. It was pointed out that there were too many different MMs in Cal with no one acting. Someone also commented that one reason participants did not want to turn data over to Cal ISO was because it was a contesting party.
All thought that DSM should be included in the market in order to be considered in mitigation.
Comm. Breathitt asked Ms. Sheffrin why the price cap wouldn't work in Cal. She responded that the problems in Cal were with the need for LT contracts and other issues (she also said that it is not a zonal/lmp issue). Importantly, she said that consumers are now conserving 3000-5000 MWs annually since getting the appropriate price signals. Mr. Popowski said that he likes the price caps in PJM. Margie countered and said that "icap" in PJM is the problem.
FERC staff asked if the MM should monitor bilaterals. Marji said absolutely not (between consenting companies and should not be unraveled). Both agreed that the MM may at times need access to these in order to understand what was happening in the spot market.
=====================================
|
4,132 |
Subject: Pending FERC Order, West-wide Mitigation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12462.
=====================================
The following report is comprised of what was discussed at the Commission
meeting held yesterday and additional intelligence gathered from FERC
staffers after the meeting. We are awaiting the final order and will update
this report as soon as it issues. Generally, the order is expected to expand
the scope of the Commission's April 26 Order, and this report will highlight
the differences.
Geographical Scope- Mitigation is extended to cover all 11 western states.
Term- The term of the order will be extended to cover 2 summers. We expect
the order to issue today. If so, the order will take effect at midnight
tonight and continue in effect until 9/30/02.
Spot Market- Defined as sales of 24 hours or less, transacted on the day of
delivery or the day prior to delivery.
Must Sell- To prevent physical withholding, the plan will require all sellers
to offer all their available power in real time. All California generators,
even those not subject to FERC price regulation, will be required to sell
into the ISO's real time market. Sellers in the rest of the WSCC are
similarly required to sell, except that they are not required to sell into
California and can choose their spot market. They will be required to post
available power on the Western Systems Power Pool board. Hydroelectric
facilities will continue to be exempted.
Price Mitigation- Expanded to be in place 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Applies to all sellers, including marketers and non-public utilities. The
plan retains a single market clearing price auction for the spot market,
based on marginal cost bids. The proxy price formula is changed in several
respects:
1. Gas price will be the average of the mid-point of the monthly bid week
prices as reported in Gas Daily for Malin, SoCal Gas Large Packages and
PG&E City Gate.
2. O&M increases from $2 to $6.
3. Fuel start-up and emissions costs are eliminated from the formula and
uplifted from the ISO (i.e. these costs will be recovered from the ISO, but
will not go into setting the proxy price).
4. Similarly, a credit adder of 10% will apply, only in CA.
A reserve deficiency in CA (7% or less) also triggers mitigation for the rest
of the WSCC. The applicable price during reserve deficiency periods is the
proxy price outlined above. During times when no reserve deficiency exists,
the mitigated price will be 85% of the highest price calculated in the last
Stage 1 emergency. This price will be in effect until the next Stage 1
emergency. Sellers can bid higher than the proxy, with justification, during
periods of reserve deficiency or when no reserve deficiency exists; PROVIDED
THAT MARKETERS MAY NOT BID ABOVE THE PROXY PRICE. FERC will consider the
entire portfolio of a seller who seeks to justify a higher price than the
proxy. Generators may seek cost based rates for their entire portfolio in CA
if they so choose (i.e. no cherry picking).
Demand Side Management- The plan originally set forth in the April 26 order
is expected be removed in this order.
ISO Reporting- ISO will need to report on a quarterly basis as to the status
of building supply in CA.
Comments- Comments will be sought on the issue of whether the price
mitigation formula should be adjusted in response to expected varying load
conditions due to seasonal changes.
Settlement Conference- The settlement judge will convene a settlement
conference on the refund issue no later than June 25 (next Monday) and the
parties will have 15 days to settle. A report from the judge to the
Commission is due 7 days thereafter (for a total of 22 days).
Issues that are NOT expected to be addressed in the order include
confidentiality, ISO board issues, ISO scheduling penalty application, and
market based rate authorization. The Order is not finally issued as of yet,
and the status of the foregoing items could change upon issuance of a Final
Order. We will keep you posted.
Ray Alvarez
=====================================
|
4,133 |
Subject: Re: Alternate Decision on CPA Implementation (DWR rates and Direct
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9452.
=====================================
got sent back the first time.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 11:47 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
02/27/2001 11:47 AM
To: JMB <[email protected]>, Chris Calger, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Govenar <[email protected]>, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Alternate Decision on CPA Implementation (DWR rates and Direct
Access)
Thanks, Jeanne:
Couple of thoughts.
1) If California wants to get out of this crisis, it's critical that DWR be
creditworthy. Bilas' proposal helps in that regard. We've been thinking
pretty hard about the issue and working with DWR to try to fix
creditworthiness concerns. Christian, it might make sense to put together
some comments supporting Bilas' approach and perhaps give him some additional
recommendations about what the PUC needs to do to get DWR creditworthy? If
so, (see note below), we have an opportunity to provide those comments to the
PUC by this Friday.
2) Scott Govenar--on the direct access piece. Seems like it would be very
useful to get the DA coalition we're working with in Sacramento to jointly
file some comments on Friday in response to the Bilas proposal supporting a
ban on any PUC action on the DA prohibition since the Legislature is still
working on it. What are your thoughts? And if you and the rest of the
Sacramento team agree, can we work with Jeanne to get some (brief) language
put together and work to get the rest of the coalition to sign on.
Alternatively, we could work to get the other folks file individually. Your
thoughts on both approaches is appreciated.
Best,
Jeff
JMB <[email protected]>
02/27/2001 10:04 AM
To: "'Bob Frank (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Harry Kingerski
(E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'"
<[email protected]>, "'Sue Mara (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Tamara
Johnson (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Alternate Decision on CPA Implementation
On Friday (February 23rd), Commissioner Bilas issued an alternate decision
to the February 20th draft ALJ decision on interim implementation of the
California Procurement Adjustment. Basically what the Bilas alternate
does is give DWR certain assurances, without any money right now. It
provides Commission recognition that the purchases made by DWR are not
subject to Commission reasonableness review and that once DWR has provided
the Commission with its needed revenue requirement that the Commission must
pass it through to ratepayers. What it does not do is implement a CPA
mechanism. The Bilas draft recognizes that the matter is being dressed
through the process established by ALJ Deulloa and a decision on it should
be rendered by the end of March. The Bilas draft also states that the
Commission "shall stay action on implementation of suspension of direct
access under water code section 80110 until further order."
If we want to comment on the Bilas draft, they are due on Friday the 2nd. I
think Bilas' approach makes sense. Adoption of the ALJ draft decision would
mean the implementation of an interim CPA mechanism for a few weeks, to
potentially be replaced by another interim mechanism at the end of March, to
ultimately be replaced by a final CPA mechanism.
As for the Bilas language on direct access -- while it is good, I think we
were successful in removing the direct access suspension language from the
ALJ's Draft Decision (it was removed in the version released on the morning
of the last commission meeting), so I think we have that point covered
regardless of which order gets voted out.
I will fax a copy of the draft to Harry and Sue (I don't have an e-mail
version). Let me know if you feel we should comment.
Jeanne Bennett
=====================================
|
4,134 |
Subject: Re: California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9655.
=====================================
He's the CBW of Enron CityWorks.
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/05/2001 03:26 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: California
thanks. who's jeff shields?
Paul Kaufman@ECT
03/05/2001 01:29 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry Kingerski, Jeff Dasovich, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: California
FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT on 03/05/2001 11:35
AM ---------------------------
Jeff Shields
02/26/2001 09:46 AM
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Laird Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael
McDonald/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael Danielson/SF/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: California
I participated in a meeting on Friday afternoon in which staff of the
California Energy Oversight Board and the Cal Energy Commission briefed
representatives of the Governor's offices in Washington and Oregon on a
variety of energy related matter. Prior to the meeting the California folks
were given a list of topic areas and specific questions relating to the
respective topics. I have a list of those questions that I will be happy to
provide if your interested. Following are some notes regarding the discussion
that took place.
The first topic area was about the projected load/resource balance for this
summer in California. The Californian's provided a one page listing of the
various resources and anticipated loads that they expect to exist this
summer. They expect Peak Demand + 7% Reserves to be 61,125 MW's. They have
59,209 in total "existing resources." They expect to have 3,050 MW off the
existing resources off-line for much of the summer. The net short position is
4,966 MW.
Governor Davis expects 5,053 MW of new generation. The Oversight Board and
CEC believe this is probably going to be 2,500 MW at best. Many of the
numbers were based on some suspect assumptions, including such things as an
expectation that BPA will be in a position to make some exports to Cal this
summer.
A second topic area is air quality. Governor Davis has asked all of the local
Air Quality management Districts to relax emission standards for this summer.
The problem is that California has some rules requiring older plants to
comply with BACT by 1-1-2002. Many plant owners have ordered the equipment to
comply and are anticipating being down to install this. There is no single
coordinator with reliable information on these planned outages.
NW Power Planning Council staff told the Californian's that they should
expect the NW Hydro system to be 4000 MW below normal through October, beyond
that who knows.
It was interesting to listen to the CEC explain how California has gone from
a system that didn't allow long-term energy contracts to the current effort
to secure long-term contracts with little capability to manage spot and
short-term transactions.
According to the Cal guys, the state expects to be severely energy
constrained starting in June, even if they manage to have capacity. This is
largely a function of gas supply.
An economist from the Washington State Energy Office said the between 1997
and 2004 Washington has seen a 150 % increase in demand for natural gas. He
said Oregon is up 110% in that same time frame. Apparently much of the supply
to get through this winter is coming from storage which will have to be
replenished, creating a conflict with anticipated generation capability this
summer.
California is starting to discuss an industrial curtailment program for this
summer. Like so many of California's efforts, there is no coordinated effort
around this program.
The CEC said they are bracing for 20-100 hours of blackouts this summer.
While this doesn't sound like a lot, I believe the blackouts at the end of
the year were only about 5-10 hours ( this is a guess on my part based on
what I recall from news reports).
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,135 |
Subject: FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Joe E.', '[email protected]', 'Guzman', 'Daniel', 'Thompson', 'Jo-Linda', 'Geraldi']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/912.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Michele Sorensen/HOU/EES on 11/21/2001 11:17 AM ---------------------------
Enron Energy Services From: Michele Sorensen 11/21/2001 10:48 AM Phone No: 562 901 3807 Office 714 813-0742 Cell 888 578 8404 Pager
To: Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.
I received a call from Jack in the Box this morning regarding Commissioner Wood's ruling requiring
that copies of Direct Access Contracts be submitted by 12-3-01. They would like to know what our
position is regarding this ruling? Are we submitting them? If we are submitting the contracts, are we
deleting the names or specific information? What are our thoughts on the risks of being "uncooperative".
Steve Brigandi at JBX would like a response by early next week.
See the note below. Please call to discuss.
Thanks, Michele
---------------------- Forwarded by Michele Sorensen/HOU/EES on 11/21/2001 10:22 AM ---------------------------
"Steve Brigandi" <[email protected]>@jackinthebox.com> on 11/21/2001 09:54:08 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steve Brigandi/CSC/FMI on 11/21/2001
09:53 AM ---------------------------
"Mattes, Martin" <[email protected]> on 11/19/2001 08:09:45 PM
To: "Steve Brigandi (E-mail)"
cc: "Thompson, Jo-Linda" , "Geraldi, Daniel" , "Guzman, Joe E."
Subject: FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C
ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.
Steve -- The attached ruling by Commissioner Wood -- just received late
today -- puts Jack in the Box at significant risk of being placed in a
category of "uncooperative" direct access customers whom the CPUC might
seek
to deprive of the entitlement to their direct access contracts -- unless
Jack provides a copy of its contract (initially under seal) for
consideration as evidence in the CPUC proceeding. The "protection"
contemplated by the Assigned Commissioner is comparable to that accorded
utility documents submitted to the CPUC, which are protected unless and
until the Commission or a presiding Commissioner or ALJ decides public
disclosure is warranted. An earlier ruling indicated a willingness to
allow
redaction of customer identifying information and that would be easier to
make effective if the contract were to be submitted by our ESP (is it
Enron?) rather than by us. Maybe we should try to get the ALJ or the
Assigned Commissioner to agree that if an ESP submits a customer's contract
(with identifying information redacted) and includes the customer's name on
a list of all customers whose contracts have been submitted, then the
customer need not do so.
Is confidentiality important to Jack in the Box? If so, what information
in
the contract would need to be redacted to provide adequate confidentiality
protection (e.g., addresses, phone numbers, etc.)? Is Jack's ESP willing
to
cooperate in seeking a solution such as I've suggested above?
I'm leaving town Wednesday at noon and will be in hearing in LA Monday
through Thursday of next week. But I'll be checking e-mail and voice mail
regularly.
Regards,
Marty
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keller, Kris [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:47 PM
> To: Service List
> Subject: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access
> Contr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.
>
> <<CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc>>
(See attached file: CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc)
- CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc
=====================================
|
4,136 |
Subject: FERC ALJ Report Consistent with Expectations
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11949.
=====================================
Good Morning:
Attached, please find our FC note discussing the report issued by the FERC
ALJ following the refund settlement conference, which concluded on Monday.
<<IPPupdate071301.pdf>>
Summary:
1. On July 12, Curtis Wagner, the Administrative Law Judge who presided over
the recent FERC settlement conference, issued a report presenting his
findings and recommendations on next steps. Overall, the report was very
much consistent with our expectations.
2. Wagner notes that large refunds are due from the generators. However, he
argues that the $8.9 billion amount demanded by the State of California
"cannot be substantiated." Rather, ultimate refunds will likely approach
and perhaps exceed a mere $1 billion. Further, Wagner indicates that
amounts owed to the generators likely exceed any refunds that may be due.
As such, cash refunds, which have been demanded by California Governor Gray
Davis, cannot be justified.
3. Wagner's recommendations focus less on quantifying refunds due and more
on the appropriate methodology and procedures FERC should adopt in arriving
at a final decision. In terms of methodology, Wagner argues that with some
modification FERC should apply its June 19 market mitigation order, which
called for 24 hour floating price caps, on a retroactive basis to October 2,
2000. From a procedural perspective, Wagner recommends that FERC order a 60
day evidentiary hearing to resolve the significant factual disputes between
the State of California and the generators and other power sellers.
4. Litmus Test: Impact on Forward Earnings Our view is that the market's
litmus test for evaluating recent political and regulatory events must focus
on their impact on forward earnings, returns and growth rates. It is
important to remember that while the prospect of refunds creates some
uncertainty, this issue has absolutely no bearing on the forward earnings
prospects for any of the California IPPs-AES, CPN, MIR, NRG, and RRI.
5. CPN and MIR are Best Positioned In our view, Strong Buy rated Calpine
and Buy rated Mirant face the least exposure with respect to the refund
issue. In the case of Calpine, recent press reports indicate that the
company is close to a bilateral settlement with the State of California,
which would resolve all outstanding issues with regard to retroactive
refunds. We believe this settlement could be forthcoming over the next 2
weeks. Such an announcement would be an important catalyst for the stock.
In the case of Mirant, while the company had been involved in the spot
market over the past 12 months, the company has reserved about $295 million
(75%) against its past receivables. We regard this action as highly
conservative, providing MIR considerable downside protection.
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.
- IPPupdate071301.pdf
=====================================
|
4,137 |
Subject: Re: FW: FELLOW SIGNATORIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT - ALTRA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1194.
=====================================
Thanks. We're on the same page. Already notified folks. But given the
witch hunt, figured we'd sit back and let things run their course.
MBD <[email protected]> on 09/07/2000 12:03:27 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: FW: FELLOW SIGNATORIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT - ALTRA
Jeff, this sounds like an opportunity for Enron on line. We should bide our
time for now, but tell the guys in the server farms to gear up. Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Angeles, Zenee G. - TPZGA [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 5:27 PM
To: Alexander, Michael@sce; Amirault, Paul@AEC; Bayless, David@Utility;
Beach, Thomas@Crossborder; Burkholder, John@cts/whb; Chancellor,
Craig@Calpine; Counihan, Rick@Green Mountain; Dasovich, Jeff@Enron; Day,
Michael@GMSSR; Dingwall, Brian@UEM; Elsesser, Evelyn@aelaw; Johnson,
Pamela@REMAC; Jun, Christine@aelaw; Karp, Joseph@Whitecase; Keeler, Paul@BR;
Leslie, John@Luce; McCrea, Keith@CIG/CM; Paul, Joe@Dynegy; Pocta, Mark@ORA;
Porter, Doug@SCE; Rochman, Michael@CUB; Rochman, Michael@SPURR; Scott,
Susan@TW; Worster, Gerard@TXU; Zaiontz, Jean@BP
Cc: Sullivan, Glen J.; Lorenz, Lad - TPLPL; Suwara, J.- TPJUS; Betonte,
Robert - TP2RSB; Follett, B. David - TPDBF
Subject: GIR: FELLOW SIGNATORIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT - ALTRA
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear fellow signatories to the Comprehensive Settlement:
On Friday of last week, SoCalGas and PG&E informed ALJ Biren that Altra had
definitively declined to offer the electronic trading services that both the
already-approved PG&E settlement and the pending SoCalGas/SDG&E
Comprehensive Settlement contemplated would be provided specifically by
Altra for at least an intial period. Both SoCalGas and PG&E sent a letter
and email to to the full service list yesterday (Tues, 9/5) informing
parties of this development.
SoCalGas believes that some modification to the Comprehensive Settlement in
necessary to take this development into account, and that we then need to
file the modification as soon as possible with the Commission. The ALJ has
indicated to us that some formal filing with the Commission in response to
this development will be necessary.
We want to work with the signatories to the Comprehensive Settlement to
reach a consensus as soon as possible. Our goal is to cause little or no
delay in the processing of a decision on the Comprehensive Settlement.
What SoCalGas has in mind is modifying the settlement to remove the specific
naming of Altra and to insert language saying that SoCalGas will select and
contract with a third-party provider for a specified period of time, without
identifying in the settlement who that will be. We also need to consider
whether we should address in the revision to the settlement how we will
handle the possibility that the third-party provider will not be ready to
operate by the April 1, 2001 date the settlement provides for the monthly
imbalance trading, OFO day imbalance chip trading, and storage rights
trading. SoCalGas is looking at interim arrangements that it could provide
in-house starting April 1, 2001, until the third-party provider could begin
service. We also might consider what would happen if no third party
provider can be found.
To avoid any claims that we have not complied with the settlement rules,
today we mailed and emailed to the full service list a notice of a
settlement conference for Wednesday of next week. We want to file something
with the Commission very promptly thereafter.
Please feel free to contact Glen Sullivan at 619-699-5027, Lad Lorenz at
213-244-3820, Bob Betonte at 213-244-3832, or June Suwara at 213-244-3504 on
this subject.
For those of you who have not heard, Brian Cherry has submitted his
resignation from Sempra Energy's Regulatory Affairs Dept. and will be going
to work shortly for PG&E in a similar capacity.
=====================================
|
4,138 |
Subject: El Paso Announces Binding Open Season for Additional Capacity on
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12049.
=====================================
Also posted today on El Paso's web site.
---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT on 07/10/2001
02:14 PM ---------------------------
"Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on 07/10/2001 02:10:18 PM
To: <[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman"
<[email protected]>, "Randall Rich" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: El Paso Announces Binding Open Season for Additional Capacity on
Line 2000
FYI
Tuesday July 10, 9:21 am Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: El Paso Corporation
El Paso Announces Binding Open Season for Additional Capacity on Line 2000
HOUSTON, July 10 /PRNewswire/ -- El Paso Natural Gas Company, a subsidiary of
El Paso Corporation (NYSE: EPG - news), announced today a binding open season
for 320 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of pipeline capacity from the
Keystone and Waha areas of the Permian Basin in West Texas to the California
border near Ehrenberg, Arizona. The binding open season, which began July 5,
2001 and closes on August 2, 2001, is in response to the interest expressed
during El Paso's non-binding open season in March 2001 soliciting shippers
for potential system expansions.
The expansion capacity will be made available by adding compression to El
Paso's Line 2000 from McCamey, Texas to the California border near Ehrenberg,
Arizona. The expansion capacity will be sold at El Paso's existing maximum
California tariff rate, and the fuel charge is estimated to be 5 percent. The
projected in-service date of the expansion facilities is mid-2003 subject to
the receipt of all necessary regulatory, environmental, and right-of-way
authorizations.
The receipt points on El Paso's system for this capacity will be the Waha and
Keystone pools in the Permian Basin area of West Texas. The delivery points
will be Southern California Gas Company (SoCal) and PG&E's proposed North
Baja Pipeline, El Paso's bi-directional lateral (Line 1903), any future
incremental capacity on the SoCal system from Ehrenberg, Arizona into the
State of California, and any upstream points on El Paso's south mainline
system where capacity exists.
``This system expansion will add incremental interstate capacity to
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas to meet increasing natural
gas demands including the demand for natural gas to generate electricity for
the western United States,'' said Patricia A. Shelton, president of El Paso
Natural Gas Company.
Interested parties can contact their transportation marketing representative
or Mr. Jerry W. Strange at (719) 520-4687.
El Paso Corporation is committed to meeting energy needs throughout North
America and the world with operations that span the energy value chain from
wellhead to electron. The company is focused on speeding the development of
new technologies, such as clean coal and liquefied natural gas, to address
critical energy shortages across the globe. Visit El Paso at www.elpaso.com.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This release includes forward-looking statements and projections, made in
reliance on the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. The company has made every reasonable effort to ensure
that the information and assumptions on which these statements and
projections are based are current, reasonable, and complete. However, a
variety of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the
projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this
release. While the company makes these statements and projections in good
faith, neither the company nor its management can guarantee that the
anticipated future results will be achieved. Reference should be made to the
company's (and its affiliates') Securities and Exchange Commission filings
for additional important factors that may affect actual results.
SOURCE: El Paso Corporation
=====================================
|
4,139 |
Subject: Recent questions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__macroeconomics/21.
=====================================
Here are some recent questions I've gotten from your classmates and my
answers to them.
> Thanks for the interesting articles. Could you
> explain the following
> statements from the Argentina article? Specifically
> what is this
> financing gap referred to below? How does it relate to
> the fiscal deficit?
>
> Two basic scenarios have emerged. The more cautious is
> that Argentina, held back by its strong currency and
> lack of competitiveness in the region, will at best
> see anaemic growth next year. That would be unlikely
> to raise much enthusiasm among foreign investors, and
> could complicate Argentina's task in raising the
> Dollars 17bn or more it needs from the capital
> markets to cover next year's financing gap.
Basically, this is what the country needs to come up with to balance its
Current account deficit. Suppose everything is in balance but then a
foreign exporter like Boeing sells a plane to Argentina but decides not
to keep its pesos in Argentina in a bank account or by reinvesting it in
the economy but instead to convert its proceeds into dollars. Now
unless an equivalent amount of pesos is invested by some other
foreigners in Argentina (converting their dollars into Pesos), the
currency board will have to sell dollars to Boeing in exchange for pesos
and decrease the supply of pesos in the economy and reduce its foreign
reserves.
Now think of millions of transactions going on. If on balance,
argentina has to use its foreign reserves to balance its current account
it will start to deplete them. At some point it would either have to
devalue (to make it more expensive for Boeing to sell pesos for dollars)
or effectively raise interest rates to very high levels in order to
attract investment. Now, with a fixed exchange rate Argentina cannot
devalue. so it must raise interest rates which would further weaken the
economy.
One solution is to lower its budget deficit. This decreases the
country's total borrowing needs and implies that interest rates will
decline helping spur domestic investment. This also helps to restore
foreign investors' confidence. This should lower the risk premium and
bring down interest rates more.
>In terms of what shifts the IS-LM curve, are these things such as:
> a. China's potential entry into WTO which would open up the market to
increased
> foreign investment thus, increasing competition which would result in
increased
> consumption (lower prices) and unltimately a shifting of the IS curve
because
> there would be a greater demand for goods and services
This is really too indirect and long-term, you really want something
that directly
changes government spending or some sudden decision to change
consumption or investment behavior in order to shift the IS curve. It
would be more like Japan's decision to stimulate the economy through
more government spending. Or say Brazil lowering pension payments
thereby shifting the IS to the left. Or how countries are suddenly
forced to invest to counter Y2K
> In the book on p. 193, it says "expansionary fiscal policy abroad reduces
investment."
> Not clear here.
This assumes that the foreign countries have a big effect on world
savings (if not there is no effect). In this case if they spend more
they essentially reduce the amount of funds available to everyone else
to borrow. This drives up the world interest rate which lowers
investment since the costs of investment is now higher (I is a function
of r)
> P.194 on chart: why doesn't r* go up?
This is because in a small open economy, the interest rate is equal to
the world interest rate which is fixed. The country is too small to
affect r. The idea is exactly the same as in micro when we say that
firms are price takers. here the price is r.
> In Japan, how does 0% r get rid of deflation?
Think of it simply as increasing the money supply. In the classical
model (see p154-158). A higher M results in higher prices. This is the
opposite of deflation where prices fall.
=====================================
|
4,140 |
Subject: Analyst Meeting Talking Points
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/eci/129.
=====================================
Here are some thoughts for Enron to share with at the Analyst meeting.
Please let me know if you have any additions, changes, or deletions. What I
tried to put down were the key facts and positions. If I've missed anything
let me know. This is not a great story.
Jim
OUR PHYSICAL POSITION IN CALIFORNIA
EES has electricity customers within the territories of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E
(about 800 MW of usage) [NOTE - CHECK WITH EES]. EES has natural gas
customers within the territories PG&E and SoCal Gas.
Enron does not have any generation in California (we own a small QF in Nevada
but only have 50 MW excess).
We supply power to the Utilities and to our retail load by buying excess in
California or by transmitting power into the state. Enron sells natural gas
to the LDCs mainly under spot arrangements.
Enron continues to manage the risk by using traditional hedging tools and by
using the full complement of resources of EES - demand reduction, load
shaping, and efficiency improvements.
Transwestern has long-term capacity arrangements with PG&E.
OUR POLITICAL POSITION IN CALIFORNIA / MESSAGES
The current situation (shortages and potential bankruptcy) is not the result
of competitive markets, rather it is the result of barriers to workable
retail and wholesale markets designed into the California deregulation model
(for instance, the overreliance of the Utilities on the spot market, the
residual CTC calculation, incomplete retail tariff unbundling requiring
direct access customers to pay more than their fair share for the Utilities'
common costs).
Enron does not want to see the California Utilities go bankrupt because those
naysayers of competition will use this situation as an argument against
competition. Enron disagrees. What it proves is that not finishing the job
of creating real competition can result in problems.
Enron believes that there are workable short-term and long-term solutions for
California.
In the short-term, (1) California must provide credit enhancement or directly
buy power for the Utilities' needs to ensure a stable supply of electricity,
(2) California should incent customers to institute demand reductions, and
(3) California should raise rates to cover reasonable costs so that the
Utilities do not petition for bankruptcy.
In the long-term, (1) California needs to continue its activities to promote
retail competition (and most importantly it must allow real price signals to
be sent to large customers), (2) California should implement the changes that
the FERC highlighted (end the reliance on the spot market, remove
stakeholders on the Cal ISO Board, give the Utilties the ability to recover
wholesale power costs), (3) California must remove unnecessary barriers to
the development of additional generation capacity, and, most importantly, (4)
California must establish reasonable structures so that the Utilities develop
a balanced portfolio of supplies to better manage electricity market
volatility.
California should not get into the business of owning or operating generation
assets or transmission facilities.
California should not stop moving forward with retail competitition which
allows customers to manage price risk rather than some regulator.
KEY ENRON ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
We do have outstanding deliveries into the California utilities and would be
an unsecured creditor if bankruptcy occurs. We continue to sell to
creditworthy counterparties in Western Power markets. [NOTE - THE AMOUNT OF
RISK IS AN IR ISSUE THEY WANT TO MANAGE].
The PX Credit (and associated negative CTC) continues to be an issue. Enron
believes that the rate freeze has not yet ended legally and PG&E's and SCE's
tariff requires the Utilities to pay funds to the customer's agent. We filed
a Complaint Friday January 19 at the CPUC. We are confident that these funds
will be recovered. [NOTE - I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS - AGAIN
AN IR ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE RECEIVABLE]
=====================================
|
4,141 |
Subject: Re: FW: Roseman Creek fireplace
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3221.
=====================================
Wow. This guy sounds impressive! I agree with Prentice's assessment (of
course, I always agree with Prentice's assessment).
Best,
Jeff
Happy Valentine's Day to all.
Prentice Sellers <[email protected]>
02/14/2001 01:59 PM
To: <[email protected]>, Nancy Sellers <[email protected]>,
Cameron Sellers <[email protected]>, [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Roseman Creek fireplace
This guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I suggest we get
the repairs done immediately and leave the tile for later. Can you find
out if he can finish before next weekend whatever needs to be done to have
a fire safely? I've been planning a trip with two friends of mine from
school for a long time and it would really be a bummer to have to cancel
it. Thanks for working on this.
Also, about the $$, mom should have put aside $10,000 from grandpa ($5,000
from me and Cameron each) that was supposed to go for replacing the
roof. This is much more important, so I suggest using that money.
Finally, we can get Jeff's friend Karen to help us with the tiles. We will
talk to her.
At 01:43 PM 2/14/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Dotty: Thought you and Jack might be interested in this report.
>
>Jeff: How do we go about getting in touch with the person you mentioned to
>do the tiles?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gmc [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:30 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Roseman Creek fireplace
>
>Hello, Eldon...
>Your fireplace was improperly installed, and the fire was caused by embers
>falling in between the fireplace and the hearth, igniting the plywood
>underlayment and the wooden framing installed in front of the face and the
>header above the fireplace opening. There should be no combustible material
>there, and sooner or later a fire will result. You are fortunate the result
>was not worse. The important metal underlayment supplied with the fireplace
>was not installed. The fireplace must be moved about 5" up to the face of
>the wall. All the tile must be removed and replaced with non combustible
>underlayment. The chimney seems ok but you must replace the cap and the
>chimney is no longer available, necessitating fireplace replacement if it
>ever becomes necessary due to corrosion. The insulation is probably wet,
>which happens over the years and it settles, leaving hot spots in the
>chimney. At least yours is out in the air, but it should be checked, and
>will be if I do this job.
>You will provide the tile, and bear in mind that some will have to be cut,
>so avoid small tiles. You will also provide sanded grout and grout
>additive, and a mastic (25#) such as epoxy "Elastobon". Your tile supplier
>will know what we're talking about. I will get all other materials locally.
>You are looking at, I estimate, $2,400.00 - $3,200.00 plus materials. I
>prefer to work jobs like this at Time and Materials, based on my labor rate
>of $50.00 per man hour. If I have to bid this job, it will be suitably
>inflated to deal with unforeseen variables. I have been here for 26 years
>without any construction related problems, and have lots of references.
>The materials will consist of cedar shingles, plywood, roofing shingles
>(asphalt), glue, Wonder Board tile underlayment, stainless steel cap, 2X4's,
>screws, plumbing fittings for the gas line, sheet metal, and incidentals.
>My estimate is done as accurately as possible, but unforeseen problems could
>change the time I've estimated for the job. The materials will be about
>$700.00, and this is the deposit I will require. Let me know what the ETA
>of your tile will be. If you prefer, I can do the job without the tile,
>leaving the Wonder Board tile underlayment exposed, which is totally safe,
>and you can decide upon tile later, after looking at the site after the
>fireplace is moved. I will need a half square min. to do the roof of the
>fireplace pop out.
>Regards,
>Will Guyan
=====================================
|
4,142 |
Subject: RE: ISO Strikes Again
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12004.
=====================================
I guess this means we've really arrived! I doubt if I merit the status of
nabob, but I think it's a little better than being a pundit, but not quite
as desirable as being a muckamuck. Actually, I think they only said "nabob"
because it went so well with "northwest."
Honorary titles aside, we are working with the ISO to make sure that the
analysis takes into account the circumstances of the bids they have studied.
We believe that the Department of Market Analysis didn't fully understand
the context for bidding, particularly for ancillary services. We are
looking forward to receiving clarification from the ISO.
Don Wolfe
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 7:09 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: ISO Strikes Again
Good morning, thought the following from today's Electricity Daily might be
of interest:
Northwest Nabobs Upset With Gouging Charges
Pacific Northwest power nabobs--accustomed to a long, gentlemanly and
mutually beneficial relationship with California utilities--are mighty upset
that some California fingers are pointing at them. A confidential report of
the California Independent System Operator obtained by the Los Angeles Times
claims that the Bonneville Power Administration and two other publicly owned
utilities--B.C. Hydro's marketing arm, Powerex, and the Los Angeles
Department of Water & Power--are among entities that drove up California
energy costs by selling power at unreasonable prices. Cal-ISO contended that
BPA made more than $30 million in excessive profits between May and November
of last year and ranked fifth among all sellers in making extra money.
The Cal-ISO accusation uncorked a furious reaction from Bonneville, which
believes it has gone out of its way to be helpful. "We are very upset about
it," said Steve Oliver, a Bonneville vice president, who last week met with
officials of the Cal-ISO to complain about the report. "We had tried to be
good neighbors." Tacoma Power chief Mark Crisson echoed Oliver's concern.
Crisson called it a "cheap shot" and told the Tacoma News Tribune that it
could hurt relationships between the two regions.
BPA insisted that the California report was flawed and asked the ISO to take
another look at the facts. BPA said it had offered to sell power at
below-market rates and that, at times, Cal-ISO was so desperate for
electricity that it paid much higher prices. In any case, said BPA, any
money it made on the sales was quickly eaten up when it turned to the spot
market to cover its own customers' demand. Bonneville posted a five-page
rebuttal to the Cal-ISO report on its website last week.
BPA noted that it "is suffering severe financial impacts from the California
market breakdown" and would actually benefit from lower prices. "We were
taken off guard by this," said BPA's Oliver. "We had come in with low bids
and then accepted market prices or the rates they actually suggested. We met
with them. We told them to call if there was a problem. No one ever called
us."
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has also raised doubts about the
methodology the ISO used to calculate the alleged overcharges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Now personally, I hadn't heard the word "nabob" since Spiro Agnew called the
press, "nattering nabobs of negativism." Don Wolfe...how do you feel about
being a nabob?
Dan
=====================================
|
4,143 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4455.
=====================================
INDIVIDUAL.COM
Here's an article recommended by: Karen Denne
and it comes to you via Individual.com, Inc.
The following message was attached:
HERE IS THE STORY WE WERE REQUESTED TO SEND YOU
This story appeared on http://www.individual.com December 11, 2000
_________________________________________________________
Calif. Restarts Dirty Power Plants
By JENNIFER COLEMAN
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation -
Hoping to ease the state's electricity
crisis, air-quality regulators Friday allowed the restart of
several power plants in Southern California that had been shut down
because they had reached air pollution limits.
The move came a day after California encountered an
unprecedented power crunch, with electricity supplies for the
state's 34 million people so perilously low that California only
narrowly avoided blackouts.
The power crunch has been blamed on cold weather in the
Northwest, the shutdown of some generating plants for repairs or
other reasons, and the effects of utility deregulation in
California.
On Thursday, during the emergency, power plants capable of
producing 2,400 megawatts were off-line because they had exceeded
their pollution limits. One megawatt is sufficient to power about
1,000 homes.
On Friday, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
agreed to let some of those polluting power plants return to
operation and restore about half of that lost generating capacity.
However, those plants will have to pay daily fines.
Restarting the over-polluting plants should provide a cushion
for state, said Stephanie McCorkle, a spokeswoman for the
California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's
power grid.
In addition, hundreds of companies voluntarily cut consumption
Friday to avoid imposed outages.
``We're still encouraging conservation efforts,'' said Lori
O'Donley, spokeswoman for the ISO. ``We're optimistic that we won't
have to'' impose shutdowns on commercial customers.
Federal energy regulators are working with the state to find
power that can be diverted to California during the crunch, moves
that could include increasing hydroelectric generation out of
state.
The power grid's managers were able to avoid blackouts Thursday
by shutting down the enormous state and federal pumps that push
water from Northern California to central and southern regions.
The phased-in deregulation of California's $20 billion
electrical power industry was supposed to lower prices by creating
greater competition. But demand for electricity has outstripped
supply, in part because of a growing population and a booming
high-tech economy.
Electricity is also in short supply because energy companies
held off building new power plants while deregulation was in the
planning stages. In addition, deregulation has forced utilities to
sell off their power-generating assets, such as dams and plants,
and import electricity from neighboring states, where power demand
is high right now because of a cold snap.
_________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
4,144 |
Subject: FW: anderson & fines
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1530.
=====================================
FYI -=20
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Iannarone, Lauren =20
Sent:=09Friday, November 02, 2001 9:46 AM
To:=09McKalip-Thompson, Catherine
Subject:=09anderson
06/20/2001 The Globe and Mail Metro B13 "All material Copyright (c) Bell Gl=
obemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved." WASHINGTO=
N -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in one of the first fraud=
cases ever filed against a Big Five accounting firm, fined Arthur Andersen=
LLP and three partners more than $7-million (U.S.) in connection with audi=
ts of Waste Management Inc.'s annual financial results.=20
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court here, the SEC alleged that Arth=
ur Andersen and its partners allowed Waste Management to continue for sever=
al years a series of improper accounting practices that inflated the garbag=
e-hauling concern's earnings. The complaint alleges fraud on the part of th=
ree audit partners assigned to the Waste Management account: Robert Allgyer=
, 56 years old, of Lake Forest, Ill., who has retired; Walter Cercavschi, 4=
5, of Harwood Heights, Ill.; and Edward Maier, 54, of Chicago.=20
Arthur Anderson agreed to pay the fine to settle the case, but the firm and=
the auditors don't admit or deny the allegations. Among the audit partners=
, Mr. Allgyer agreed to pay $50,000, Mr. Maier, $40,000, and Mr. Cercavschi=
, $30,000. Arthur Andersen agreed to pay $7-million. As part of a campaign=
to curb what it sees as growing accounting fraud, the SEC has broadened a =
number of investigations of companies' earnings reports to include audit wo=
rk done by outside accountants. In bringing the first fraud case against a=
ny audit firm since 1985, SEC enforcement chief Richard Walker said the act=
ion "helps to underscore the importance of auditors as gatekeepers to our c=
apital markets and shows the SEC won't shy away from making auditors comply=
with their responsibilities." Under a related administrative proceeding f=
iled yesterday alleging professional misconduct, the SEC also censured Arth=
ur Andersen, the three audit partners and a fourth partner, Robert Kutsenda=
, who was the regional audit director at the time of the alleged violations=
. As part of the censure, the four audit partners are barred from doing acc=
ounting work for public companies for a period of one to five years. "This=
settlement allows the firm and its partners to close a very difficult chap=
ter and move on," said Terry Hatchett, Arthur Andersen's managing partner-N=
orth America. "The SEC has not questioned the underlying quality or effecti=
veness of our overall audit methodology, nor has the SEC limited our abilit=
y to conduct audits for other public companies." An attorney for Mr. Allgy=
er declined to comment. Attorneys for Mr. Maier, Mr. Cercavschi and Mr. Kut=
senda didn't return phone calls. Waste Management said it "has co-operated=
fully with the SEC in the investigation, and does not believe that the SEC=
will seek any action against Waste Management in connection with the event=
s detailed in the Arthur Andersen settlement." The Waste Management accoun=
ting scandal stands out for it size and breadth. After a board-led probe tu=
rned up years of questionable accounting, the company took a $3.5-billion c=
harge in 1998, and since then the trash hauler and Arthur Andersen agreed t=
o pay $220-million to settle shareholder litigation in the matter. The com=
pany admitted it had overstated its pretax earnings by $1.43-billion in 199=
2 to 1996 -- the biggest restatement in SEC history. Neither Waste Manageme=
nt nor any of its employees have been disciplined by the SEC. The SEC said =
yesterday that the investigation continues. Within the SEC, the Arthur And=
erson investigation became a centrepiece of the commission's aggressive cam=
paign to demonstrate that conflicts of interest can be caused by consulting=
and other non-auditing services that numerous accounting firms now routine=
ly offer audit clients. =09
=====================================
|
4,145 |
Subject: Davis devises new borrowing plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/539.
=====================================
Davis devises new borrowing plan
His executive order could speed up $12.5 billion in bond sales and bypass PUC oversight of repayment mechanism.
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Gray Davis is crafting a new plan to expedite the long-delayed borrowing of $12.5 billion to repay the sagging California state budget for emergency electricity it bought during the energy crisis.
The plan -- which could be contained in an executive order as early as next week -- would minimize the role of the state's top power regulator, the Public Utilities Commission, which enraged Davis last week when it declined to sign off on his original plan.
With enough power now under contract to avert blackouts and plans in place for the recovery of the two state's largest utilities, the repayment to the state treasury would resolve one of the last remaining issues of the energy crisis.
"That is one scenario," Davis spokeswoman Hilary McLean said Wednesday when asked about the proposal. "There are a number of different scenarios being considered. Nothing has jelled yet that is ready to be publicly announced."
Most involved in the debate have long agreed that the state should sell $12.5 billion in revenue bonds, most of which, about $9.6 billion, would go back into the state treasury. The issue was how to lock in a mechanism by which the bonds would be repaid - a critical step before they could be marketed to investors.
Davis wanted the PUC to approve a plan that would repay the bonds and cover the state's energy costs through the revenues collected from ratepayers. But the PUC said the administration's proposal might prove inadequate over time, leading to future rate hikes.
The PUC also said the administration's plan gave too much authority to the Davis-controlled Department of Water Resources, by allowing the department to raise electricity rates to get more revenue.
The PUC, which is set up to be an independent board with the sole responsibility for setting utility rates, did not want to cede that authority. It rejected the Davis plan Oct. 2 on a 4-1 vote, led by its president, Davis appointee Loretta Lynch.
Davis earlier said the commission's approval was necessary to reassure investors and get the bonds to market.
The plan now under review, however, would bypass that.
The DWR would not directly set rates, but under the Davis plan it would be charged with identifying how the money coming in from customers' utility bills over the next 20 years would be allocated - in effect, guaranteeing that paying back the bonds would have equal priority with paying back the suppliers of the energy. Proponents of the plan believe that would satisfy Wall Street.
The administration believes it would require no additional rate hikes.
Lynch said Wednesday that she had not been involved in the latest negotiations, but questioned whether Davis had the authority to issue an executive order allowing the DWR to get involved in setting rates.
"I've been told for six months that the PUC was needed to pass a rate agreement. If the DWR can get the bonds sold by themselves, then great," Lynch said. "But to dedicate rates, it takes a financing order from the PUC or a statutory change in law, a statutory set-aside. It takes one of those two things."
The governor is likely to announce the plan sometime following his expected veto of the bill that lays out the Legislature's version of the payback plan. By law, the governor has until Sunday to act on SB18xx, by Senate Leader John Burton, D-San Francisco.
Davis opposes Burton's bill because it gives bond buyers priority in getting paid, followed by the energy suppliers. The power companies' contracts contain provisions giving them payment priority, which Davis believes could throw the contracts into legal dispute.
If Davis signs the order soon, the bonds could go to market early next year. Having the proceeds in the state treasury by then is considered by some critical with the state facing a projected $4 billion to $6 billion shortfall in other income.
=====================================
|
4,146 |
Subject: Get Jim Cramer's Stock Picks By Email!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11773.
=====================================
Get Jim Cramer's Real-Time Stock Picks and Premium-Level
Commentary Absolutely FREE for two weeks! This detailed
trading information is not available on RealMoney.
http://sub.thestreet.com/c/go/XAAP/DEDM-exprd1?s=S961&D=XTSM
Dear Former Subscriber:
For years, the market's top journalists, money managers
and investors have looked to Jim Cramer for insightful
market commentary and analysis.
The only thing missing has been his stock picks.
But now, since breaking free from his top hedge fund, Cramer
is free to share his stockpicking secrets with the world,
and make trades for his own personal account.
And you can get these Premium Stock Picks delivered to
your email inbox absolutely FREE!
With your FREE two-week trial subscription to Jim Cramer's
Action Alerts PLUS, you'll get Jim Cramer's Real-Time stock
picks and Premium-Level investment insight that you won't find
anywhere else including on RealMoney.
Click here for your FREE two-week trial subscription to Jim
Cramer's Action Alerts PLUS:
http://sub.thestreet.com/c/go/XAAP/DEDM-exprd1?s=S961&D=XTSM
When Jim Cramer Makes A Move, You'll Be There!
With your FREE Two-Week trial subscription to Jim Cramer's
Action Alerts PLUS, you'll get exclusive access to Jim
Cramer's specific action-oriented investment ideas and mid-to
long-term stock picks throughout the trading week:
* High-Octane Stock Picks and Commentary:
Within minutes of his trades, whether it's "Buy 100 shares
of ABC Company" on Monday or "Sell 75 shares of XYZ Company"
on Thursday, you'll get an email alert from Jim Cramer
detailing the trades he's making. You'll know immediately
which stocks Cramer is buying and selling and, most
importantly, "WHY" he's making those trades!
* Email Alerts in Real-Time:
Since these stock picks are delivered directly to your
email inbox, you can act immediately -- and strike while the
iron is hot -- to build a portfolio of stocks for mid-to
long-term gains.
It's like having Jim Cramer right beside you -- as
a portfolio-building coach!
Action Alerts PLUS is so unique because it includes the detailed
information about Jim Cramer's trades and the rationale behind
them. You won't find this insightful content anywhere else.
The only way you can access this valuable information is by
activating your FREE trial today!
So if you're ready to supercharge your investing, and make
smarter investment decisions, click below for your FREE two-
week trial subscription to Jim Cramer's Action Alerts PLUS!
http://sub.thestreet.com/c/go/XAAP/DEDM-exprd1?s=S961&D=XTSM
===============================================================
This email has been sent to you by TheStreet.com because you are
a current or former subscriber (either free-trial or paid)
to one of our web sites, http://www.thestreet.com/or
http://www.realmoney.com/. If you would prefer not to receive
these types of emails from us in the future, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/z/unsubscribe.jhtml?Type=M If you are
not a current or former subscriber, and you believe you received
this message in error, please forward this message to
[email protected], or call our customer service department
at 1-800-562-9571.
Please be assured that we respect the privacy of our subscribers.
To view our privacy policy, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html
Neither TheStreet.com nor James Cramer is registered as a
securities broker-dealer or an investment adviser either with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission or with any state securities
regulatory authority. Both the portfolio and the Action Alert emails
represent Mr. Cramer's own investment opinions, and should not be
construed as personalized investment advice. Mr. Cramer cannot and
does not assess, verify or guarantee the suitability of any
particular investment to your own situation. You bear responsibility
for your own investment research and decisions and should seek the
advice of a qualified securities professional before making any investment.
=====================================
|
4,147 |
Subject: Re: Bond Leg Language, etc.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/868.
=====================================
You can send both, but I'd have folks keep it close to the vest. Definitely want to make sure that none of our stuff ends up in the hands of the media.
Susan J Mara 07/06/2001 12:52 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Bond Leg Language, etc.
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
=====================================
|
4,148 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly--Issue #37; CSFB Power Generation S
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11617.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW073001.pdf>>
Also note that on September 10 and 11, CSFB will host a Power Generation
Supply Chain Conference at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. This 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.
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 0.9% Last week our IPP composite traded off 0.9%, slightly
underperforming both the NASDAQ (0.0%) and the S&P 500 (-0.4%) Reliant
Resources was the strongest performer, rising 6.9%. NRG Energy was the
weakest, declining 10%.
2. One of the Most Volatile Weeks of the Year In terms of stock price
performance, last week was one of the most volatile weeks of the year for
the Independent Power Producers. On Monday (7/23) and Tuesday (7/24) the
group declined by over 10% before staging a dramatic recovery to end the
week barely unchanged. We attribute the week's initial downturn to concerns
early in the week surrounding "soft" power market conditions. The recovery
during the second half of the week reflected a number of factors, including:
1) Analysis indicates that power markets have been more stable than
generally believed; 2) Earnings results continue to exceed expectations; 3)
Depressed valuations provide a cushion for stock prices; and, 4) On 7/25 the
FERC issued a favorable order on generator refunds.
3. Credit Spreads Continue to Improve Importantly, while our IPP equity
composite has traded off more than 10% over the last few weeks, IPP credit
spreads continue to tighten. For example, while Calpine shares have traded
off 11% since July 6, the spreads on CPN's 10 year 8.5% notes due 2011 have
actually tightened by about 40 basis points. We regard this movement as
bullish from an equity perspective.
4. Q2 Earnings Reported for AES, CPN, NRG and PPL Last week second quarter
earnings results were reported by AES, Calpine, NRG Energy and PPL. Upside
surprises were reported by AES, CPN, and NRG. Versus expectations, CPN's
results were the strongest coming in 30% above our estimate. While AES's
results were 14% above our estimate, we reduced our 2001 full-year forecast
owing to currency weakness in Brazil.
5. Looking Ahead: Q2 Results Expected from BKH, CNL, DPL, ETR, MIR and ORN
This week we await earnings reports from Black Hills, Cleco, DPL, Entergy,
Mirant and Orion Power. We do not expect any major upside or downside
surprises from this group. In particular, our estimates for BKH, ETR and
MIR are in-line with company guidance that had been publicly reaffirmed over
the last few weeks.
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.
- IPW073001.pdf
=====================================
|
4,149 |
Subject: Re: FW: Jessica Knight
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Jerry Scott <[email protected]', 'Carol Williams=20', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9140.
=====================================
you done good, fella. how's life at 50 treating you? it was great to see=
=20
you, and between you and me, i don't think that anyone would come close to=
=20
guessing that you're fifty. i want you to know that i'm constantly trying =
to=20
figure out how i can get down to s.d. to spend some time together. it's=20
something that i very much look forward to, but i gotta tell you, man,=20
working for enron and attending UC's evening mba program is kicking my butt=
! =20
the good news is that enron has seen fit to promote me (senior director---o=
ne=20
notch below v.p.), and i didn't even have to move to houston....and cross=
=20
your fingers---if things work out i may sign a contract with a winemaker to=
=20
buy grapes from 10 acres of vines on the land that i bought on the=20
sonoma/mendocino coast (vines ain't planted yet; way it works is you get th=
e=20
contract from the winemaker and use the contract to finance the development=
=20
of the vines). anything but a slam dunk, but i'm going to work hard (and=
=20
have fun) trying to make it happen.
it was great to see you in Oakland and thanks very much for the kind note. =
=20
you will always be an very dear friend and you can count on me showing up o=
n=20
your doorstep soon. give jessica a hug and a kiss.
all the best,
jeff
p.s. confidentially, and i know you'd never take it, but ken lay's been=20
throwing your name around quite a bit as the "top choice" for a FERC=20
position. also, (and i'll tell you more when we get together), i was on a=
=20
panel in new york with dan fessler! he was the same, though arguably a=20
beaten, dejected man, based on what he did to California.
=09Jessie Knight <[email protected]>
=0902/14/2001 08:34 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: "'[email protected]'" <[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]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: FW: Jessica Knight
Well, Jessica is a different "kid" now. How time flies. Jessie
=20
Jessie J. Knight Jr.=20
President & CEO=20
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessica [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:39 PM
To: Jessie Knight; B. Camille Williams
Subject: FW: Jessica Knight=20
Look at what my boss wrote about me!
------ Forwarded Message
From: Theo Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:07:46 -0800
To: Belinda Blair <[email protected]>, Kelly <[email protected]>,=20
Holly Daniels <[email protected]>, spriestley <[email protected]=
>,=20
Larry Hancock <[email protected]>, Brenda Factor <[email protected]=
om>
Cc: Jerry Scott <[email protected]>, Carol Williams=20
<[email protected]>, jknight <[email protected]>, Kevin Henry=20
<[email protected]>
Subject: Jessica Knight=20
Carol H. Williams Management Team,
As most of you know, Jessica Knight is a part-time employee here at the=20
agency and has been a member of the Nissan Team for past 6 months. As part =
of=20
her development and education, starting Monday (February 19, 2001) Jessica=
=20
will become a =01&floater=018 here at the agency. This means that she will =
be=20
available to work on other accounts and projects where her skills and=20
abilities are needed. Jessica is skilled at using MS Word, MS Excel, MS=20
PowerPoint and searching the internet for information. Jessica has also=20
proven herself to be very bright and open to learning new advertising=20
processes.=20
To best manage this process, Jerry Scott and I will manage Jessica=01,s wor=
kload=20
and help set priority when necessary. Jessica is available Mondays and=20
Wednesdays (16 hour work week).=20
Please feel free to request Jessica=01,s assistance whenever you feel it is=
=20
needed.
Theodore Brown=20
------ End of Forwarded Message
=====================================
|
4,150 |
Subject: Re: NordPool
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8135.
=====================================
Jim,
1 - Governance: p9/10 covering Scandinavia of the OFFER doc. still broadly
reflects the position. Plans to broaden the ownership base of Nord Pool
beyond the Norwegian and Swedish SOs to include Finnish and Danish SOs have
not yet materialised.
2.- Transmission owner varies by country. In N and S, state-owned entities
(Statnett, SvK) that were demerged from state-owned generators (Statkraft,
Vattenfall respectively) are the TOs and SOs (bundled). As stated above,
NPool is 50/50 owned by Statnett and SvK. Fingrid, Finnish SO is 25% owned
by PVO (generator), 25% Fortum (generator), government (12%) and
institutional shareholders (38%). In W.Denmark, the distribution companies
own the SO, Eltra.
In E.Denmark, the situation is somewhat in flux. Elkraft System (SO) is now
to be owned the E.DK distcos, rather than the dominant generator, EK Energi.
I note that as of 1.01.01, Elkraft System and Elkraft Transmission have been
established as separate entities so there is some move to separate, at least
mominally, TO and SO roles. However, any consideration of Denmark must
acknowledge the consumer ownership model, which is effectively reverse
vertical integration: distcos own the dominant generators
Finnish and Danish TOs/SOs have no stake in Nord Pool (MO).
3. Participation in Nord Pool remains voluntary. Participants can contract
directly with NP or with each other for supply. All tranmission, with some
exceptions, is allocated to Nord Pool and rationed and priced through the NP
auction.
4. Not quite sure what you mean here. While there are increasing moves to
coordinate system operation between the countries, each country has its own
balancing market arrangements.
Most of the discussion in the OFFER document on Scandinavia still looks good
to me. Hope this does the job.
Regards
Philip
Mark Schroeder
04/01/2001 10:38
To: Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: NordPool
Philip - thanks mcs
Jim - I had one more thought after speaking with Jeff, and just wanted to
make sure that it had been considered (may have been considered and rejected
by now). Any thought to treating the huge debt recently rolled up in a way
that is akin to the olds PGA trackers in the gas industry, i.e., allow
utilities a cost of capital (even very low, e.g., 5%), than allow a fixed
monthly recovery, plus when wholesale (or retail prices) fall below some
specified level they can also add in some of the outstanding balance on the
debt that has recently accumulated? For example if the price cap is set at 6
cents per kWh, and an additional i cent is allowed for recovery of this debt,
total bill is seven. If prices eventually fall to 4 cents in a competitive
market (California dreaming!?), then utility can recover 4, plus the 1 cent
authorised, plus 2 cents applied toward the old debt (difference between 6
and 4). Customers could still switch suppliers, and might seek supplier who
will not add on the 2 cents (good for Enron), but might meet the ratemaking
principle that utility has been given reasonable opportunity to recover its
costs. Also at least delays, if not a permanent solution, any possible
bankruptcy. Just a thought. mcs
Philip Davies
04/01/2001 08:49
To: Mark Schroeder
cc:
Subject: NordPool
FYI - I will respond.
---------------------- Forwarded by Philip Davies/LON/ECT on 04/01/2001 08:52
---------------------------
From: James D Steffes@ENRON on 03/01/2001 17:46 CST
To: Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: NordPool
Philip --
I wanted to make sure that the OFFER memo on Feb 98 still was correct for the
NordPool.
The key issues we are trying to establish are -
1. Governance
1.b Relationship of Transmission Owner to System Operator and Market Operator
2. Mandatory / Voluntary Participation
3. Energy Pool vs. Balancing Pool
If the report is still good, we can probably just pull the answers with some
help from you.
Jim
=====================================
|
4,151 |
Subject: Clinton Press Release on Electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/39.
=====================================
President Clinton: Taking Action To Help California With High Electricity=
=20
Prices
August 23, 2000
President Clinton today directed Federal agencies to provide assistance to=
=20
low income households and small businesses in Southern California. The=20
wholesale price of electricity has risen steeply in parts of the country th=
is=20
summer, hitting California=01,s low-income households and small businesses=
=20
particularly hard. California=01,s hot weather, its limited generation and=
=20
transmission capacity, and growing demand have combined to significantly=20
increase the price of electricity. Higher prices have been passed on to=20
retail consumers, including low-income households and small businesses, in=
=20
certain parts of California where the retail price of electricity is=20
unregulated because of requirements established by the state=01,s electrici=
ty=20
restructuring legislation. Earlier this week, the California Public Utiliti=
es=20
Commission took steps to ease the burden on these consumers by adopting a=
=20
plan to stabilize their electricity bills.
PRESIDENT CLINTON TODAY ANNOUNCED SEVERAL STEPS TO HELP CALIFORNIA RESPOND =
TO=20
HIGH ELECTRICITY PRICES:
? Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson today requested that the Federal Ener=
gy=20
Regulatory Commission expedite its national investigation of the operation =
of=20
bulk power markets so that state and Federal regulators and policymakers ca=
n=20
have the information they need to protect consumers in a timely fashion.=20
? President Clinton today directed the Department of Health and Human=20
Services to release $2.6 million in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Progr=
am=20
(LIHEAP) emergency funds for low-income households in Southern California.=
=20
This release doubles the funds that the affected region in Southern=20
California currently receives under the LIHEAP program, helping low-income=
=20
Californians who have faced substantially higher electricity rates this=20
summer.=20
? President Clinton also directed the Small Business Administration to urge=
=20
its lending partners in Southern California to use SBA credit programs,=20
particularly the 7(a) program, and technical assistance to help small=20
businesses in San Diego and Orange Counties hurt by high electricity prices=
.=20
SBA=01,s existing range of loan programs is flexible enough to help busines=
ses=20
whose costs have increased because of high electricity bills.=20
PRESIDENT CLINTON ONCE AGAIN CALLED ON CONGRESS TO PASS COMPREHENSIVE=20
ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING LEGISLATION: The President urged Congress to work=
=20
with the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies to enact=20
comprehensive electricity restructuring legislation, which can promote=20
greater investment in generation and transmission facilities and enhance=20
regional planning, reliability and the efficiency of the interstate=20
transmission grid, each of which is needed to ensure the availability of=20
affordable and environmentally responsible electricity to power America int=
o=20
the 21st century.
TODAY=01,S ACTION BUILDS ON EFFORTS ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT EARLIER THIS=
=20
MONTH TO HELP CALIFORNIA MEET ITS ELECTRICITY NEEDS THIS SUMMER. Earlier th=
is=20
month, in order to help reduce the risk of power outages as a result of=20
electricity shortages in California, the President directed that managers o=
f=20
all Federal buildings in California take steps to reduce consumption of pow=
er=20
to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the health and welfare of=
=20
employees, and that Federal agencies coordinate with other state and local=
=20
government agencies to minimize the use of electricity in all government=20
buildings in California. President Clinton also directed earlier this month=
=20
that all federal agencies take steps to help California maximize available=
=20
electricity. The Federal government is one of the largest electricity=20
consumers in California representing approximately 2% of all electricity us=
e.
=====================================
|
4,152 |
Subject: Re: FERC Price Mitigation (Cap) Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11495.
=====================================
I attended a luncheon this afternoon at which the keynote speaker was FERC
Chairman Curt Hebert. Although the Chairman began his presentation by
expressly stating that he would not comment or answer questions on pending
proceedings before the Commission, Hebert had some enlightening comments
which relate to the referenced matter:
Price caps are almost never the right answer
Price Caps will have the effect of prolonging shortages
Competitive choices for consumers is the right answer
Any solution, however short term, that does not increase supply or reduce
demand, is not acceptable
Eight out of eleven western Governors oppose price caps, in that they would
export California's problems to the West
This is the latest intelligence we have been able to gather on the matter.
We will be monitoring the Commission meeting tomorrow morning to determine
the outcome.
Ray Alvarez
Alan Comnes@ECT
04/24/2001 11:47 AM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael M
Driscoll/PDX/ECT@ECT, Matt Motley/PDX/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Chris
Mallory/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Alonso/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark
Fischer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Phillip Platter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve C
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Elliot Mainzer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Bill Williams
III/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: FERC Price Mitigation (Cap) Update
West Traders et al.
FERC's meeting, which will include the issue of price mitigation for
California, is on tomorrow's (Wed's) agenda. I will be patching in the
meeting in a conference room here in Portland. The meeting begins 7 a.m. PDT.
Based on yesterday's newspapers, staff's proposal appears to have a chance of
adoption. However, what the FERC will do is very much up in the air. Any
mitigation plan will replace the current approach set to expire 4/30/01 that
requires (1) cost reporting of all accepted bids over $150/MWh, and (2)
refunds (subject to appeal) of generators who bid and are accepted above a
index based on a heat rate and monthly gas price.
Staff's mitigation plan has been out since early March 2001. Here's a
rundown:
o Applies only in in-CA generators with agreements (PGAs) selling to ISO R/T.
o Applies only in stage 3 (ALTHOUGH one of the easiest "tweaks" the FERC can
do is make the staff proposal apply to Stage 2/3 or Stage 1/2/3)
o ISO R/T prices within the state will be "mitigated" (capped) at a single
price based on the marginal cost of the last PGA generator accepted. Staff
proposal states:
"PGA generators would be required to propose to the Commission, in advance, a
dependable capacity for
each unit as well as certain operating parameters necessary to calculate
marginal costs, such as heat rate. The Commission staff could then use a
published fuel cost such as that which is available in Gas Daily and emission
credit data (where applicable) to determine the correct price that can be
used for mitigation purposes. This would then be the basis upon which the ISO
would use pre-determined standing prices to mitigate prices during
times of reserve deficiency (e.g., Stage 3)."
o It is not clear whether a daily or monthly index would be used. Currently
refund orders use a monthly index.
o By "single price", not that everyone will get the in-state clearing price
based upon the marginal cost of the last PGA generator selected.
o Imports: the staff proposal punts on imports. I read staff proposal imply
that there will be no mitigation on imports per se but that imports are
likely to be taken on an OOM basis more frequently when stage 3's are in
effect.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Alan Comnes.
=====================================
|
4,153 |
Subject: El Paso Merchant may relinquish capacity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9464.
=====================================
Jeff,
We've got the entire breakdown on "who got what" in the open season. The=
=20
following is incomplete, but represents the bulk of what was subscribed....
Burlington- 7,000
CEG Energy Options- 37,800
Coral- 15,000
Duke- 212,000
Dynegy- 56,500
El Paso Merchant- 277,000
ENA- 254,000
MGI Supply (Pemex)- 38,000
Oxy- 19,000
PG&E (et al.)- 151,000
SMUD- 10,000
Sempra Trading- 6,500
SoCal- 19,000
Texaco- 58,500
Williams- 11,500
Here's the other EPNG news flash... apparently, EPNG is telling shippers to=
=20
be on the lookout for an announcement next week of another open season to=
=20
gauge shippers interest in a major expansion of its system. I'm assuming a=
t=20
this point this project will include the All American pipeline asset.
I'm also now told that the Kern River expansion may be much larger than wha=
t=20
we were led to believe a couple of weeks ago. We heard earlier that they=
=20
were looking at doing a 500 MMcf/d expansion that would include the 124=20
MMcf/d expansion already sold. New information suggests that the 500 MMcf/=
d=20
expansion may be significantly understated, and volumes may approach 700 -=
=20
800 MMcf/d. The expansion would include not only compression, but would=20
involve additional pipe, and would not be rolled into existing rates, but=
=20
would be an incrementally priced project.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff =20
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:23 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; [email protected]; Parquet, David; Chris Calger@ENRON;=
=20
Etringer, Michael; McCubbin, Sandra; Mara, Susan; Kingerski, Harry; Fawcett=
,=20
Jeffery; Scott, Susan; Harris, Steven; Fossum, Drew
Subject: El Paso Merchant may relinquish capacity
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 12:20 PM -----
=09Rebecca W Cantrell@ECT 02/27/2001 10:22 AM =09 To: Barry=20
Tycholiz/NA/Enron@ENRON, Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna=20
Greif/HOU/ECT@ECT, James Shirley/HOU/EES@EES, Jane M Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jef=
f=20
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Patti Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul=20
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT=
,=20
Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Stephanie=20
Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Suzanne=20
Calcagno/NA/Enron@Enron, Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: El Paso=20
Merchant may relinquish capacity
From today's Gas Daily, in case you haven't seen it yet.......
El Paso Merchant Energy will be passing up on its right of first refusal f=
or=20
up to 1.22 billion
cfd of capacity on El Paso Natural Gas, sources said yesterday. El Paso wou=
ld=20
not comment
on the report but said the company would issue a statement soon.
The capacity, from the San Juan Basin to California, was open for bids unt=
il=20
Feb. 12, and
El Paso Merchant Energy held a right of first refusal at six receipt points=
=20
until May 31. El Paso
Merchant paid $38.5 million for the capacity, which was previously held by=
=20
Dynegy Energy
Marketing.
The capacity has been the source of controversy in the wake of California=
=01,s=20
ongoing energy
crisis, with companies concerned that an affiliated company held the pipeli=
ne=20
capacity.
The California Public Utilities Commission alleged in a FERC complaint that=
=20
the agreement
between the companies was "rigged" (GD 1/11).
"There has been a lot of pressure," said Gordon Howald, an analyst with=20
Credit Lyonnais
Securities. "Everyone is blaming them for what=01,s going on in California,=
=20
though I believe
FERC did clear them."
Howald said that giving up that capacity and allowing the "market to decid=
e=20
the value"
would help El Paso on two fronts.
"It probably makes sense considering the pressure they=01,ve been under fr=
om=20
regulators,"
Howald said. And "their pipeline operations could essentially garner some=
=20
higher profitability
if they are able to increase the value of that capacity in an open season."=
RW
=====================================
|
4,154 |
Subject: RE: Meetings at Edwards AFB
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5259.
=====================================
Bill,
Thursday looks real crazy right now--we are hosting a congressional staffer
and I'm acting group commander this week. MAYBE late in the day I will have
an opening; please coordinate with Karen at 277-2910. Thanks!
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: William Gang [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 3:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: CN=Weaver Paul Civ 95 CEG/O=CEOEE; Bill Votaw; Jeff Dasovich
Subject: RE: Meetings at Edwards AFB
Good afternoon, LTC Emanuel. As you can see, I am trying to set up some
informal meetings ahead of the publication of the the privatization
procurement
for utilitiesat Edwards AFB. Please see the original correspondence with
Paul
Weaver below, where I requested his direction/advice. Would such
informational
meetings be possible with you, and whoever you deem appropriate on Thursday,
22
Feb? Bill Votaw, my President, and I will be in the area on that day, and
hope
to visit.
On a separate note, we have scheduled the next CA electric commodity update
for
the Edwards AFB/AFCESA personnel for Friday Feb 23 at 1100 hours (PST). I
have
arranged for the same call in number1-800-711-8000, passcode 7137112.
Paul, I would like to stop by your office to meet with you on Thursday at
0830,
if that is convenient for you.
Jeff, Bill and I will be at your office on the 23rd at 1030 hrs, and we will
get
on the USAF call at 1100.
regards,
Bill
---------------------- Forwarded by William Gang/HOU/EES on 02/20/2001 03:38
PM
---------------------------
Weaver Paul Civ 95 CEG/CEOEE <[email protected]> on 02/20/2001
10:46:09
AM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Meetings at Edwards AFB
Bill, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to drop by. Re the
privitization thing, I've not been much involved with the evolution of this
at Edwards thus far. I think I would be increasingly involved when and if
it really does happen, but like I said I've not been part of that inner
circle so far. I might advise you to work that approach through LTC Greg
Emanuel 661-277-3336. ([email protected]). Hope this helps.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Meetings at Edwards AFB
Hello, Paul. I tried to contact you several times by phone yesterday
(Friday), but I was unable to reach you.
Bill Votaw (Pres, EFSI) and I will be in the Western US in some meetings
next week, and we wanted to visit Edwards AFB on Thursday, 22 Feb. Our
purpose is twofold. First, we wanted to meet you in person and bounce off
you some ideas for energy usage at air force bases before we took them to
AFCESA. Our hope is that you could coach us a bit on whether certain ideas
would need some tailoring in order to improve their reception at AFCESA.
Second, we wanted to meet with some CE-type personnel regarding the future
privatization of the electric, gas, water, and wastewater systems at
Edwards. These we envisioned as informal discussions to find out about the
attitudes Edwards personnel have regarding privatization, the maintenance
work being done now, and the status of the systems. Our thinking is that
the civilian person in charge of each system's maintenance might be
appropriate to talk to. Of course, we needed to have such discussions
prior to the publication of any privatization RFPs. I had thought of
calling COL Durkin directly, but I do not know him, and did not want to
just "cold call" my request, yet I would not attempt to arrange such
meetings without permission of him or his designee. Can you suggest the
best way to establish such meetings for next Thursday? Your support is
well-appreciated.
I am still on the road at the moment, but I will be in the office on
Tuesday morning ( I assume Monday to be a holiday for both of us). I will
be checking email over the weekend, should you retrieve this during that
period.
Regards,
Bill
=====================================
|
4,155 |
Subject: Late Press on PUC Decision
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/2833.
=====================================
Late afternoon 1/3/01 news:
USA: Calif utility ratings may fall too far on 7-15 pct hike.
By Jonathan Stempel
01/03/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
NEW YORK, Jan 3 (Reuters) - Bankruptcy may loom and the credit ratings of the
two largest California electric utilities will likely fall too far if that
state's Public Utilities Commission awards them an interim rate hike of 7 to
15 percent, analysts said Wednesday.
In a draft decision on Wednesday, the CPUC proposed an immediate hike of 9
percent for residential customers of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern
California Edison, and hikes of seven to 15 percent for various business
customers.
The CPUC commission is expected to issue a final decision on Thursday.
"It forces the utilities and their creditors to be limbo dancers, and skilled
limbo dancers at that," said Shawn Burke, head of U.S. investment-grade
research at Barclays Capital.
PG&E and SCE had requested respective rate increases of 26 percent and 30
percent, a hike that would help them avoid imminent bankruptcy.
The utilities have also asked the regulators to remove a freeze on retail
rates imposed under California's 1996 law that deregulated the state's
electricity market.
On a day when most stocks roared ahead after the Federal Reserve announced
surprise interest rate cuts, investors beat down the stocks of Pacific G&E's
parent, San Francisco-based PG&E Corp. , and SoCal Edison's parent, Edison
International .
PG&E shares closed Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange at $17, down
$2-9/16, or 13.1 percent, while Edison International shares closed at
$12-1/4, down $2-3/4, or 18.3 percent, on the Big Board.
Bond quotations were not immediately available for the utilities' bonds,
which in recent weeks have traded like junk.
Pacific G&E and SoCal Edison were banking on a big rate hike to allow them to
pass on some of their soaring wholesale power costs to consumers.
The utilities, which operate under a rate freeze, have accumulated more than
$8 billion in unrecovered costs since wholesale power prices started
skyrocketing last summer amid a worsening electricity shortage in the state.
They claim they are running out of money due to the price freeze, and have
billions of dollars of bills coming due in the next six weeks.
Central to their concerns is whether credit rating agencies Moody's Investors
Service and Standard & Poor's will cut their medium investment grades to junk
status.
"No one knows for sure, but if we consider the average rate hike is only
about 10 percent, it will be difficult for the companies to maintain
investment-grade ratings," said Dorothea Matthews, a fixed-income electric
utilities analyst for Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown.
The utilities have already been unable to tap short-term capital markets
because of their precarious financial state.
Downgrades to junk, which the agencies have already threatened, would cement
the door shut to these markets, and cause the utilities to default on some of
their loans.
Late Wednesday, PG&E Chief Executive Gordon Smith said the commission's
proposed hikes could jeopardize his utility's future loans.
Even a downgrade to the lowest investment grades - "Baa3" for long-term debt
and "Prime-3" for short-term debt from Moody's, and "BBB-minus" and "A3" from
S&P - would make the going very difficult for the utilities. The reason:
short-term debt markets are often closed to companies with those ratings.
"Unless this process allows the rating agencies to keep 'A2/P2' ratings on
the short-term debt of both companies, then this process has largely been a
waste of everyone's time," said Burke.
Still, he said, "there is a reasonable chance, despite today's weak
recommendation, that the situation can be salvaged with mid-'triple-B'
ratings, which would allow a lifeline to conventional sources of liquidity."
Moody's and S&P were not available for comment.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,156 |
Subject: Re: Direct Access
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5503.
=====================================
Here are my first thoughts on this:
If we are to agree to exit fees, which I think we obviously have to to be
credible. The definition of, "...costs imposed on the portfolio that are
directly related to the load of the departing customer," should be the value
of portfolio costs (including generation at embedded costs, QFs at cost,
contracts, etc.) compared to market. The LD cannot be just based on the
liquidation of contract costs, or we don't get the benefit of embedded
generation value (which today would liquidate as a credit). This may bite us
if market costs drop below embedded generation, but we are out of business
now if we don't get it. Also, if we don't get the market liquidation value
of embedded generation then the portfolio gets, all else equal, a lower cost
resulting from the departing load - not fair or equitable.
Enron Energy Services
From: Mike D Smith 02/02/2001 12:39 PM
To: Scott Govenar <[email protected]>@ENRON
cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>@ENRON, Jim
Steffes <[email protected]>@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich
<[email protected]>@ENRON, Mike Day <[email protected]>@ENRON, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>@ENRON, Rick Shapiro <[email protected]>@ENRON,
Sandra McCubbin <[email protected]>@ENRON, Susan J Mara
<[email protected]>@ENRON, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES,
Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Direct Access
Harry raises some good points.
I am attaching another copy of my comments from this morning--It looks like
this draft came out before you got these comments.
I will be traveling without access to my e-mail from 11-4 PST. Please call
on my cell phone 713 302 9089 if you have questions. MDS
From: Harry Kingerski@ENRON on 02/02/2001 12:31 PM
To: Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Jim Steffes
<[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Mike Day
<[email protected]>, Mike D Smith <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro <[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin
<[email protected]>, Susan J Mara <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Direct Access
Initial comments for discussion:
Fees (exit, entry): should be transparent - in absolute terms and formula
that will be used. Can notional numbers be posted daily?
One-way tolling: eliminate re-entry fees. Puts new and returning customers
on equal footing and eliminates additional admin burdens.
DWR stranded costs for exit fee: should be an affirmative obligation on
their part to mitigate any incremental costs (reselling, etc.)
KW threshold: we're ok with 100 kw (or lower).
Limit on switching: once a year is reasonable.
Areas to clarify:
DWR carve-out: if load departs (re-enters) DWR, does it simultaneously
depart (re-enter) the utility? Assuming a clean break from bundled service,
is there an exit fee from the utility portion of the bundle?
Closure: need to specify when exit/re-entry fees no longer apply.
Open Subscription Period: if DWR does only 5+ year contracts, does this mean
there will be no open periods for a long time?
Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
02/02/2001 07:58 AM
To: Jim Steffes <[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro
<[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Susan J Mara <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, Mike D Smith <[email protected]>
cc: Mike Day <[email protected]>
Subject: Direct Access
Attached, please find the latest direct access legislative proposal for
your review and comment. This incorporates the amendments referenced in
Mike Day's e-mail yesterday. We need comments by 11:00 a.m. if possible
as the final draft language must be delivered to Senator Bowen today.
- subscription.protocols revised
=====================================
|
4,157 |
Subject: Gas Accord II: 9/14 Mtg. Reminder
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1282.
=====================================
Confidential Settlement Document Under CPUC Rule 51
PARTIES:
This is a reminder that PG&E is initiating "Gas Accord II" settlement
discussions under CPUC Rule 51, at a meeting to be held in San Francisco on
Thursday, September 14. We plan to start at 9:30 a.m. and end around 3:30
p.m. We will provide lunch. The meeting is now at PG&E headquarters in
Conference Room A, 245 Market Street (on the ground floor), and not at the
PG&E Energy Center as first announced.
Our objectives for this first meeting are to develop a list of all the major
issues that parties would like to have addressed, and also to agree on a
process for resolving the issues. Attached is our proposed agenda for this
kick-off meeting.
You can also help us prepare for this meeting and make it a success by
providing us a list of the issues you would like to have addressed in Gas
Accord II. We would like to put together a preliminary list of issues for
discussion at the meeting. The following issues were deferred to Gas Accord
II as part of the PG&E's Comprehensive Gas OII Settlement:
* o4.1 Develop Clear Procedures for Allocating Firm Capacity, i.e.
Open-Season Procedures
* o4.2 Transmission Interconnection Policy, Terms and Conditions
* o4.4 Local Transmission Reliability, Design Standards and
Curtailment Provisions
* o4.5 Mechanisms to Reduce Costs to Noncore Customers Connecting
To or Close To PG&E's Backbone Transmission Facilities, including "Direct
Connect" issues
* o2.6 Costs and Rates for Utility Core Procurement Services,
including cost allocations and brokerage fee
Additionally, the OFO Forum recommended the issue of adding more storage to
support balancing be made part of Gas Accord II.
Please provide us with your own preliminary list of issues by midday,
Wednesday, September 13. We will compile all the identified issues into a
single list and distribute them at the meeting as a first step in building a
working issues list.
Also, please note that we are continuing to compile our new Gas Accord II
mailing list. We will maintain two lists: one for general notices of
meetings and settlement conferences, and another for those who have
expressly agreed to abide by the terms of CPUC Rule 51 (attached). Since
Rule 51 protects the confidentiality of settlement negotiations, those on
this list will be able to receive settlement documents and other related
settlement materials. Everyone on the Rule 51 list will be automatically
included on the general notice list. If you have not already done so,
please complete and return the attached form so we can put you on the
appropriate lists and include your up-to-date information.
Please send your list of issues, as well as mailing list information, by
e-mail to Geoff Bellenger at [email protected], and to Frank Lindh at
[email protected], or by FAX to Geoff Bellenger at 415-973-0881.
Next, we have attached a list of our suggested dates for Gas Accord II
workshops and meetings. We would like to agree on these dates at our
September 14 meeting. Our prior settlement experience suggests that setting
aside dates early makes it easier on all parties to make necessary
arrangements.
Lastly, we will send by separate e-mail transmittal, for your information,
the original Gas Accord Settlement, the OFO Settlement, and the OII
Settlement. Each settlement expires as of December 31, 2002, or March 31,
2003, for certain provisions which relate to storage. We believe these
settlements form the foundation for our Gas Accord II settlement
discussions.
We look forward to meeting with you and starting the Gas Accord II
settlement process. Please call or e-mail us if you have any questions or
concerns.
Best regards,
Frank Lindh Ray Williams
Attorney Director
415-973-2776 415-973-3634
[email protected] [email protected]
<<Agenda 9-14-00 All-Party>> <<Proposed GA II Meeting Schedule>>
<<Mailing List Information.doc>> <<CPUC Rule 51>>
- Agenda 9-14-00 All-Party.doc
- Proposed GA II Meeting Schedule.doc
- Mailing List Information.doc
- CPUC Rule 51.doc
=====================================
|
4,158 |
Subject: VC Roundtable Dinner
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2094.
=====================================
MBA 01, MBA 02 & Evening MBA classmates
The Haas Entrepreneur Association in conjunction with the Lester Center for
Entrepreneurship is pleased to bring you the opportunity to meet and network
with venture capital professionals at the annual VC Roundtable Dinner.
Details are below:
VC Roundtable Dinner
Monday, November 6 from 6:30pm - 9 pm
Mings Restaurant in Palo Alto
WHAT IS THE VC ROUNDTABLE?
An opportunity to meet and network with 20+ venture capitalists from both
early stage and late stage firms. We have already received great interest
from a number of VCs who attended last year. To give you an idea of the
event, a list of the attendees from last year is attached below. The
planned format for this event will be pre-dinner drinks with all the VC
representatives. You will then have the opportunity to have dinner with 2
VC professionals and approximately 7of your MBA classmates (exact number to
depend on final confirmations). During dinner, you will rotate tables so
that you can meet with 2 more VC professionals in an intimate setting.
HOW DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS EVENT?
The cost for this event, which includes dinner, will be $25 per person*. Due
to limited space, invitations will be given on a first-come, first serve
basis (defined by submitting the check for $25) . We do not plan to
organize transport to the
restaurant, but highly recommend carpooling depending on your location.
*Please note that the cost of the event is to partially subsidize dinner,
which is also partly funded by your membership dues.
We would also ask that each attendee submit a short bio (no more than one
page please) to distribute to the VCs in advance. This will also help us to
match you with VCs who have similar interests/backgrounds at the event. This
bio should address what you feel is most relevant with regard to the
following:
1. A bit of personal background (undergrad institution/major, industries
you've worked in, and anything else about your background you feel is
relevant)
2. Why you are interested in VC?
3. Do you have a particular industry or sector of interest?
4. Do you have a business plan that you want to pitch to a VC? If so, in
what industry/sector? (Again this is to help us place you at tables. You
probably don't want to be pitching your radical new b2b idea to a a VC
interested in biotech research.)
Please let us know by replying to this e-mail whether you would like to
attend this event. We will confirm your attendance once we receive payment
for $25. Please make your check out to 'UC Regents' and put it in Nitin
Chellaram's mailbox in the MBAA lounge (you will find the mailbox under
'Exchange Students').
We will need your $25 payment, your firm commitment to attend and your bio
(in Word format) by 16th October. Additional details will be sent out
following your confirmation for this event.
Thanks and best regards,
Your Haas EA Team - Nitin Chellaram, Todd Wehmann, Christine Mar
VC's in attendance last year:
Mr. Christopher Billington, Associate, Artemis Ventures LLC
Mr. Sam Enoka, Associate, Shoreline Capital
Mr. Alexander Goro, Associate, Walden Management
Mr. Stephen B. Herrick, SBH Associates
Mr Josh Tanzer, Director, Private Equity Placement, Credit Suisse First
Boston
Albert Tsuei, Associate, Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Mr. Tony Conrad, Principal, Director of Brand Strategy Practice, Venture
Strategy Group
Mr Steve Domenik, Partner, Sevin Rosen Funds
Mr. Mark Gorenberg, Partner, Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
Mr Russ Irwin, General Partner, Convergence Partners
Mr. Gary Kalbach, Partner, El Dorado Ventures
Mr. Peter Loukianoff, Venture Associate, Technology Funding Venture Partners
Ms. Susan Mason, Partner, Onset Ventures
Mr. Shawn Myers, Associate, 21st Century Internet Venture Partners
Ms. Adele Oliva, Associate, Patricof & Co. Ventures, Inc.
Ms. Willa E. Seldon, General Partner, Viridian Capital
Mr. Russ Siegelman, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
Ms Hannah Sullivan, Principal, Fremont Ventures
Mr. Paul Vais, Managing Director, Patricof & Co. Ventures
=====================================
|
4,159 |
Subject: California Power Problem Articles
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/637.
=====================================
Attached are more articles that speak of the current California power crisis.
Mercury News Article primarily dealing with Governor Davis' view on the
situation and what he is doing to help solve the issue. Davis has a three
part plan: investigate price gouging, ask PUC to set up two-year plan to cut
rates in half and asked for voluntary conservation.
Asking Clinton to speed up a federal probe of apparent electricity
price-gouging by out-of-state power producers and called on state regulators;
A spokesman for the independent energy producers said his group welcomed a
federal investigation, saying it would determine that ``California simply
does not have enough generating and transmission capacity.''
To stabilize skyrocketing utility bills in San Diego; Davis called upon the
Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday to set up a two-year plan to cut
rates nearly in half for residential and business customers of San Diego Gas
& Electric. Davis described his proposal as ``a rate-stabilization plan''
designed to lower bills. ;Nettie Hoge, executive director of The Utility
Reform Network, a consumer group, criticized Davis' plan. She said consumer
groups want the Legislature to freeze rates in San Diego at July 1999 levels.
Volunary actions: Davis joined with grocers to announce a voluntary program
to conserve power on extremely hot days, meaning lights in Bay Area
supermarkets would be dimmed and air conditioning dials set higher to cut
power use by 10 percent.
Davis contends that deregulation will work out, perhaps in three or four
years, when a dozen or more power plants in the pipeline start generating
electricity.
Mercury News article states it is not time to re-regulate the markets and
provides the following solutions to solve the crisis.
Matters will improve when California has:
-> More sources of power.
-> A more sophisticated electricity market.
-> Smarter consumers -- that is, consumers with the information they need to
be thrifty.
Also the article talks of the Power Exchange (PX) and the Independent System
Operators (ISO) and how these two groups are making the prices higher; i.e
market imperfections that result from the uniqueness of electricity as a
commodity and the immaturity of the new exchanges are enabling producers to
obtain higher prices than the underlying conditions dictate.
Article concludes by saying the deregulated market is just beginning and with
a few adjustments will work out fine
Mercury News article speaking of a new report commissioned by Governor Davis
on the energy crisis. The article is primarily about the following issues.
A report commissioned by Gov. Gray Davis concluded that deregulation is ``not
working,'' and recommended a series of actions, including asking the federal
government to help control prices.
The report was written by the president of the California Public Utilities
Commission and the chairman of the California Electricity Oversight Board and
made 30 recommendations to help ease the threat of power shortages and price
spikes.
Report suggested that the state-mandated freeze on utility rates, which is
tentatively in place for PG&E customers through March 2002, might need to be
extended further.
The report also suggested the upgrading power transmission lines into San
Francisco and hooking up businesses to a central command center via the
Internet, so their lobby lights and air conditioning could be turned off
automatically when state power supplies were low.
Two key state agencies, the Independent System Operator and the Power
Exchange, were criticized in the report. It accused the ISO and the Power
Exchangeof being unresponsive to the needs of consumers, in part because
their boards include people with ties to power companies. It also complained
that they did not provide key pricing and other data requested by the
report's authors to assess the state's energy problems.
Also in the article is a repsonse by the ISO and PX to the claims made in the
governor's report.
=====================================
|
4,160 |
Subject: Re: Company Name to Use for our Singapore License
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1620.
=====================================
David, In Hong Kong and Japan, we set up local entities and used those
entities to apply for the various licenses in those jurisdictions. I assumed
we would do the same in Singapore. However, I think our discussions over the
past two weeks have raised questions about which entities will be used for
bandwidth trading in Asia. There now appears to be a question about using
one trading entity, wherever it may be domiciled, and getting that company
licensed in each jurisdiction. I don't think this issue has been resolved.
I will defer to the group (and perhaps we can discuss this on Wednesday) as
to whether we should continue our course of action and use the Singapore
entity to apply for the SBO license while we continue to discuss the overall
strategy. Thank you, Michelle
David Merrill@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
11/11/00 02:34 AM
To: Robbi Rossi@EES
cc: Michelle Hicks@Enron Communications, Wayne Gardner/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, <[email protected]>,
[email protected] @ ENRON COMMUNICATIONS, <[email protected]>
Subject: Company Name to Use for our Singapore License
Robbi, Michelle: This is to get guidance on whether I can use our newly
established
Singapore Company (below) in the application for our Singapore SBO license.
The license form requires me to name our company; its Singapore Business
Registration
Number; its principal activities as registered in the registry of companies;
its address,
its corporate structure, its financial information, a contact person
name/designation,
a contact number, etc.
So normally I would reason to use this new company for this application. Yet
in one of our
conference calls someone said (if I understood) that this company was only
for holding
title to equipment, not for all of the bandwidth trading, capacity providing
and content
activities described in the company purposes. I suppose this distinction is
for a tax
purpose.
Be that as it may, I am faced with this form. Can I use this company
(below) in the application?
If not, then what company, and what are all of its characteristics as listed
in para one above??
To think ahead a bit, we will also need a company name for our Pioneer Tax
status application.
For sure that will have to be a Singapore Based company since the whole
rationale for Pioneer
Status revolves around locating in Singapore. So maybe we should be using
the same name
for both applications?
Further, if we did get Pioneer Tax status (most favorable rate is zero tax
for five years
though we may or may not get that), wouldn't all of our standard tax
avoidance strategies
need to be re-looked at in the light that they possibly may not be as needed
in this case?
Please provide me guidance. Many thanks. PS: I will be in Houston the
week of Nov 28
if needed for discussions but earlier guidance appreciated.
David
---------------------- Forwarded by David Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
11/11/2000 04:05 PM ---------------------------
"Ang & Partners" <[email protected]> on 11/10/2000 04:24:36 AM
Please respond to "Ang & Partners" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Enron Broadband Services Singapore Pte Ltd (the "Company")
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail from ANG & PARTNERS (including any attachment to it) is
confidential and may also be privileged and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.
Accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately, delete this e-mail (including any attachment to it) from your
computer system and do not disclose or distribute it to any other person or
continue to read this e-mail. Thank you.
?
Dear Mr Merrill
?
I refer to our telephone conversation this afternoon and as requested, I
attach herewith a copy of the Certificate of Incorportion of the Company and
the main object clauses of the Company, for your attention.
?
?
Regards
?
Preetha Pillai
ANG & PARTNERS
?
Encls
- Objects-MA.pdf
- Certificate.pdf
=====================================
|
4,161 |
Subject: FW: DealBench
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Ian Sullivan', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27949.
=====================================
OK, it looks like DealBench has hit our radar screen hard here. Can you
help me get a meeting set up with the right people??
Look like the strat sourcing group in Houston is requesting a "sand box" to
play in to test out our product. Did you ever get a chance to put in a good
word there?
David Hoffman wrote me and said he really enjoyed spending time with you and
said you were such a smart and thoughtful guy. Thought you might like the
compliment. I am going to check out his house as a wedding site on Thursday
with Colleen and then go have dinner with Lisanne. Any chance you guys want
to come along?
Write back soon...
-C
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: David Young
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:44 PM
To: Cameron Sellers
Cc: Ian Sullivan
Subject: FW: DealBench
Cameron (cc: Ian),
See my response below to the email from David Hurwitz today regarding
DealBench.
My contact at DealBench is:
Suresh Raghavan, Principal (also Director of Enron Net Works)
713-853-4217
[email protected]
I'll leave DealBench in your hands, but please keep me advised as it relates
to Enron. Let me know if I can be of any help.
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hurwitz
To: A - Execs; David Young; Jim Fleming
Sent: 6/19/01 9:55 AM
Subject: DealBench
FYI: Just got a direct mail piece from DealBench, LLC, a wholly owned
Enron company. They are selling themselves as a complete RFP and
auction system.
dh
https://www.dealbench.com/
<<DealBench.url>>
----------------------------------
David H,
Here's a wrapup of my meeting with DealBench two weeks ago. I left a
voicemail for Cameron yesterday asking her how to proceed with them, as this
would become a BizDev deal with a perceived competitor.
On another note, the 2 EES Proc Mgrs that Jim F and I met with a couple of
weeks ago, mentioned that they have an initiative on the table to run a
reverse auction by July 15, and that they are considering BayBuilder. They
said they don't care about the DealBench platform, it doesn't meet their
needs and DealBench isn't giving any better deal to Enron's business units
than they would to anyone else off the street.
Ian and I are trying to schedule a meeting next Tuesday with Proc Mgrs from
several business units along with John Gillespie from GSS in order to demo
Perfect Insight and discuss our Early Adopter Program.
David Young
-----Original Message-----
From: David Young
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:35 PM
To: Jim Fleming; James Brackenrig
Subject: EnronOnline / DealBench
Met for 45 min w Suresh Raghavan to discuss DealBench (Enron's proprietary
auction platform) and the potential for Perfect to provide complementary
solutions to their customers through EnronOnline and beyond. We agreed that
the purpose of our discussions would not be to have him sponsor us to the
Global Strategic Sourcing unit, but only to consider Perfect as a bus dev
deal. We would need to price ourselves as an ASP for them, but with the
liquidity they have (supposedly like $1B per day traded through
EnronOnline), this should be a no-brainer.
Suresh is the Principal of DealBench, as well as a Director of Enron Net
Works. DealBench is one of many business units under the Enron Wholesale
Services / Enron Net Works group, including EnronOnline, ClickPaper,
MetalMarkets, and other wholesale marketplace services. DealBench has 3
primary offerings:
* Auctioning/RFQ management
* Deal Rooms with complex negotiations tools
* Data Rooms for sharing of secure documents such as CADs, blue prints, etc
for M&A due diligence.
We discussed the basic functionality and sophisticated math behind Perfect,
and he felt that it was worth considering further as a complementary service
offering for the DealBench platform. He would like to arrange a demo for
him and some of his managers for the end of June or early July.
=====================================
|
4,162 |
Subject: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2546.
=====================================
Douglas L. Dyer ([email protected]) has sent you a news article
Personal message:
Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power market reform proposals
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001020/n20262785.html
Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power market reform proposals
Home - Yahoo! - Help
[ Latest Headlines Market Overview | News Alerts ]
Related Quotes
EIX
PCG
SRE
20 7/8
27 3/4
20 3/8
-1/8
-7/16
+0
delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Friday October 20, 11:18 am Eastern Time
SDG&E files Calif. power market reform proposals
SAN DIEGO, Oct 20 (Reuters) - San Diego Gas and Electric, the utility whose
customers faced a near tripling in their electricity bills this summer, filed
a plan with federal regulators on Friday designed to address some of the
problems with California's deregulated power market.
The utility, a unit of Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE - news), filed a 17-point plan
that included a temporary price cap for wholesale power prices of $100 per
megawatt hour and a reorganization of the California Independent System
Operator (ISO), which operates most of the state's electricity grid.
``Despite the cooler weather and lower statewide demand we recently have been
experiencing, the high wholesale electric prices out customers have endured
this summer are not subsiding,'' said SDG&E chairman Edwin Guiles.
``We need federal regulators to take swift and immediate action in addressing
the fundamental structural defects in California's deregulated marketplace
that have contributed to electricity prices that we believe are neither just
nor reasonable,'' he added.
Earlier this week the state's two other investor- owned utilities, PG&E Corp
(NYSE:PCG - news) unit Pacific Gas and Electric and Edison International
(NYSE:EIX - news) subsidiary Southern California Edison also filed in support
of a $100 price cap along with consumer group, the Utility Reform Network
(TURN).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating
California's power market after prices soared to record levels this year.
There have been allegations that rates were not ``just and reasonable'' as
required under federal regulations.
The California ISO cut its cap on wholesale prices twice this year from an
initial $750 per MWh to a final $250 but drew criticism from some for not
cutting the cap faster.
The agency's board of governors includes representatives of a wide range of
organisations including independent power producers, who have made huge
profits this summer with prices soaring to record levels, as well as consumer
groups, investor owned utilities and municipal utilities.
SDG&E called for the removal of ``economically based stakeholders'' from the
board of governors and for also a reduction in its size.
``The current stakeholder board is to large to be effective and apparently
incapable of adopting the structural change necessary to support workable
competition,'' the utility said.
Customers of SDG&E were the first in the country to pay market-based prices
without a safety net under the terms of California's trailblazing power
market regulation.
State legislators intervened this year and imposed a price cap on SDG&E
retail rates after reports that pensioners were turning off their
refrigerators in a bid to avoid running up massive bills after rates tripled.
The state's power problems are rooted partly in increased loads linked to the
nation's booming economy, with Western states among those showing the fastest
growth.
There also have been few power plants built during the past 10 years, and
although many are now planned, the prolonged approval and construction
process means most will not come on line before 2002.
Email this story - View most popular stories emailed
More Quotes
and News:
Edison International (NYSE:EIX - news)
PG&E Corp (NYSE:PCG - news)
Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE - news)
Related News Categories: US Market News
Help
Copyright , 2000 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Privacy Policy - Terms of
Service
Questions or Comments?
=====================================
|
4,163 |
Subject: Summer Reminder and Course Description
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/487.
=====================================
Please delete if you are not interested in the summer course.
***************************************************************
Reminder: You must be signed up for the summer course by this Friday, April
21, if you wish to be considered for registration. You should find out by
the middle of next week if you get in. Enrollment is limited to 60 people
and will be determined by number of fall/spring semesters completed in the
program. If all members of one class/cohort cannot get in, all members of
that cohort will be randomly drawn.
If you get in the class, we will have you pick up registration forms.
Payments and registration forms will need to be turned in by May 4. The
exact price of the course has not been determined, but it will be about
$800.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Shawn
COURSE NO. E268
TITLE Strategic Brand Management
INSTRUCTOR Linda Lou Hellofs PhD
PREREQUISITES Successful completion of E206
CLASS FROMAT Based on the philosophy that "true knowledge results in
effective action", this course has a practical decision focus.
Acknowledging
diverse learning styles, multiple approaches are used to teach the
material.
Class sessions are basically split between discussions, lectures, cases,
and
in-class exercises. The class will be highly interactive and participation
is required. Reading and cases should be prepared and discussed with
others
prior to class. Communicating your ideas and then defending then are
learning objectives of this course. Name cards will be used throughout the
quarter. Please try to maintain the same seat each class. You are
responsible for all readings, even if not covered in class. Late
assignments
will not be accepted. No make-up quizes will be scheduled. Attendance is
mandatory and notification of all absences is required.
REQUIRED READINGS
Textbook David Aaker, "Building Strong Brands", The Free Press
Coursepack (articles and cases)
BASIS FOR FINAL GRADE
Group Work 40%
Brand Evaluation Project (10 pages) 25%
One Case Write-Up 15%
Individual Work 60%
Pop Quizes (5 given, 4 count) 20%
Final Exam (case) 25%
Class Participation including In-Class Exercises
15%
ABSTRACT OF CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES
This course takes a strategic perspective in addressing product, price,
distribution, and promotion issues facing firms competing in both consumer
and inindustrial marketplaces. It is organized around decisions that must
be
made by the marketer to build, measure, and manage brand equity, today and
in
the future. Applications include traditional industries, technology
companies, and the service and entertainment sectors. The course is
appropriate for those who seek careers in brand or product management as
well
as those who desire to better manage one of their firm's most valuable
equity, their brand's equity.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Linda Lou Hellofs has nineteen years work experience across a variety
of
industries. She is currrently consulting for several premium food companies
and wineries. As Vice-President of Strategic Planning for a midwest
investment company, she was responsible for lobbying at the state and local
level for alcohol related issues as well as concept development for new
ventures. She has had her own direct mail business as well as owned a
successful advertising agency. Linda has a Masters dgree from Harvard, and
a
PhD from the University of Washington where she taught for nine years. Her
research interests include relationship marketing and customer loyalty. She
has recently been published in one of Marketing's premier academic
journals,
the Journal of Marketing.
_________________________________________
Shawn Allison, Associate Director
Evening MBA Program, Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Tel (510) 643-0435 Fax (510) 643-5902
=====================================
|
4,164 |
Subject: Today's hearing at the CPUC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4181.
=====================================
Here is an update of events at the CPUC rate design hearing today.
The first panel was the Agriculture folks: California Farm Bureau, Cal.
League of Food Processors and Leprino (biggest producer of mozarella
cheese). They generally support the Governor's proposal and the ability of
ag processors to switch to agricultural rate schedules, but admitted that
this would lead to revenue shortfalls, which PG&E and others were quick to
jump on. They want the ability to switch to ag rate schedules to avoid rate
shock. The ALJ was very interested in the different segments of ag, and
their needs, loads and usage patterns. Info on this will be filed by next
week (fruit and nut usage, annual crop usage, processing, wine, dairy, beef
and poultry).
The County of Los Angeles witness testified that, as a big customer of SCE,
they wanted to protect essential services from huge rate hikes, and that
special rate treatment should be afforded to those loads identified in the
exemption from rolling blackouts Any unrecovered costs should be collected
from all customers except CARE and residential up to 130%. He supported
allocating the increase in the same proportion costs are allocated to rate
classes as in total current revenues (not just generation revenues). He also
cautioned against imposing excessive charges on peak load, as this will
encourage load shifting and not conservation. (This became a theme for the
afternoon -- is load shifting conservation, and therefore a good thing, or is
it NOT conservation, and a bad thing, that will drive up non-peak prices).
The Federal Executive Agencies' witness Brubaker would use cost of service to
the extent possible to allocate the increase. The impact of any special
arrangements made to avoid increases must be picked up by someone else.
There is not enough detailed generation information or time to make a fair
allocation, so use of a proxy is necessary. This should be the use of
existing recover of generation costs by class, resulting in an equal
percentage increase in rates. The classes reflect different cost incurrence
factors and an equal cents per kwh is not justified. Residential shortfall
should stay in that class. TOU-8 and E-19 and 20 rates should reflect a peak
price two times that of the non-peak. Tiering of TOU customers already gives
adequate price signals. Cost-based rates are most fair and give best price
signals. Tiering is a short-term solution, and metering is not in place to
handle cost based rates yet. There were some questions on how that cost
basis would be determined, since generation prices are apparently more than
cost-based, and also questions on what the appropriate differential should be
between peak and offpeak rates, as they may be converging.
Schoenbeck with Energy Producers and Consumers (that should cover everyone)
supported a spread between off and on peak and allocated all of the increase
to the onpeak rate, with a market cap of 50 cents. His proposal is a 10:1
allocation of costs between onpeak and off. He was questioned as well on
whether load shifting was conservation, and he stated that it is a
cost-saving measure and his proposal allows each customer to find his or her
own solution to the increase in costs. He was also questioned whether load
shifting might not cause mid and off peak prices to rise. This depends on
resource availability, he answered, but it could. He also testified that the
3 cents charge should not be applied to DA customers.
CIU's Chalfant testified briefly, and will be called back. He stated that
his proposal does 3 things, it passes the equity test (cost based, no rate
shock) with even increases among classes, anad reduces peak usage using top
100 hours, and uses an approved CPUC methodology. For TOU-8 and E-20, 75% of
rate increase would be collected in the summer, and 75% of that would be
collected during peak hours.
Forgive my typing errors. Tomorrow up are Kinder Morgan, Street Lighting,
Aglet Consumers, and CLECA.
=====================================
|
4,165 |
Subject: The Financial Community Starting to Rally?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2353.
=====================================
Yeah, well, this dude obviously never tried to get one of these machines
permitted in California.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron on 12/08/2000
10:05 AM ---------------------------
Market Intelligence - Enron Transportation Services
From: Lorna Brennan on 12/08/2000 09:17 AM
To: Chuck Wilkinson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, LD Stephens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Janet
Bowers/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, John Dushinske/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Tim
Johanson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Frank Oldenhuis/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Bob
Burleson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rockey Storie/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Penny
McCarran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Stephen Herber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mike
Ullom/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bill Mangels/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Weller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michael G Stage/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery
Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Christine Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK
Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lindy
Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, John
Goodpasture/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Michael Ratner/OTS/Enron@Enron, Sebastian
Corbacho/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Yuan Tian/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: The Financial Community Starting to Rally?
Distributed Power: The Next Big Investment?
With today's electricity demand expanding beyond the reach of available
supply, and nationwide electric deregulation efforts providing inconsistent
results, distributed power just may be the next big thing, according to Bear
Stearns analyst Robert Winters.
With technology-laden, electricity-hungry companies popping up every time you
turn around, and blackouts and brownouts occurring more frequently as large
power grids are becoming less reliable, the analyst points towards
distributed energy services as a possible solution, and maybe the "next big
investment opportunity for the coming decade." In Winters' 250 page report,
"Distributed Energy Services-The World's Power and Transportation Industries:
Set for a Revolution-Part 2," he examines technologies and companies within
the distributed energy services sector that might be able to take advantage
of the current situation.
"Thanks to major technological advances and energy deregulation, a wave of
new investment in the power industry has just begun. We believe that this
coming era in the power industry could resemble the wave of investments which
flooded into the telecommunications industry following the breakup of AT&T in
the early 1980's," said Winters.
"Companies and municipalities need to find ways to ensure the availability of
high quality, reliable power," added Winters. According to his research,
microturbines are the best positioned of the "new" technologies that would be
able to have an immediate impact on electric generation.
He based his recommendation on the fact that microturbines are small, quiet,
efficient and very versatile. "They can be used as a main power source, a
back-up power source or as an alternative when there is a spike in
traditional energy prices," the analyst said. "Microturbines can also be used
in remote locations, including developing countries, that do not have access
to electricity." Another attractive feature of microturbines is their fuel
requirements. The units often use natural gas, but can also use several other
fuels as well.
In the study, the analyst also examined fuel cells, flywheel technology, and
existing reciprocating engines technologies such as diesel engines and
Stirling engines, which he noted are enjoying a comeback.
In addition to the report, Winters initiated coverage on two distributed
energy companies. He labeled Active Power, a company that is pioneering
flywheel technology, as a "buy" and Capstone Turbine Corp., a leading
manufacturer of microturbines, as "attractive." The companies are in addition
to two fuel cell companies he currently follows. Ballard Power is currently a
buy, and Plug Power is rated neutral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
=====================================
|
4,166 |
Subject: NEWS: uc/csu lawsuit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3618.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 10:55 AM -----
Jennifer Rudolph@EES
03/13/2001 10:52 AM
To: CA Team
cc:
Subject: LA Times Press on uc/csu lawsuit
LA Times
Today
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
UC, Cal State Systems Sue Power Seller to Retain Pact's Low Prices
Electricity: Officials want to prevent Enron from switching their accounts to
Edison and PG&E. They fear losing discounted rates.
By MASSIE RITSCH, Times Staff Writer
Faced with losing their protection from sky-high electricity bills, the
University of California and California State University have sued to stop
their power supplier from halting service.
The UC and Cal State systems signed a four-year contract with Enron Energy
Services in 1998, locking into discounted fixed rates for electricity from
the Houston-based energy giant.
Last month, Enron notified its commercial and industrial customers in
California, including the universities, that their power would be supplied by
Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison.
Because of the complicated rules of the state's deregulated utility market,
the shift saves Enron money, but the universities fear that it could subject
them to the fluctuating--but always expensive--prices that most Californians
have been paying recently for power.
UC and Cal State accuse Enron of breaking its contract so that it can sell
power earmarked for the campuses to other customers for more money.
On Friday, the public universities asked the U.S. District Court in Oakland
to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the switch-over. No hearing has
been scheduled, UC spokesman Charles McFadden said.
"We don't object to Enron making more money," McFadden said. "What we do
object to is Enron seeking to increase their profits at the expense of
California's students, parents and taxpayers."
Enron denied Monday that the company will resell power to boost profits, and
an executive guaranteed that, for this final year of its contract with the
universities, Enron will reimburse them for any increase in their power bills
when they return to the customer rolls of PG&E and Edison.
"All the value that caused the [UC and Cal State systems] to want a contract
with us, we are retaining. . . . The only reason we did [this] is because we
found a better cost alternative to keep us in the game," Enron Vice Chairman
Marty Sunde said.
The universities estimate that their contract with Enron has saved their
campuses $30 million. Being returned to the in-state power suppliers could
cost them an additional $132 million to $297 million over 10 years, they say.
That figure includes the cost of switching meters on the campuses and
changing billing systems. More significant, the higher price the universities
would pay for power would include a projected rate increase that would help
PG&E and Edison reduce the billions in debt they have incurred in
California's deregulated electricity market.
While other colleges in the state pay super high rates for power, UC, Cal
State and Enron have proudly promoted their arrangement. In January, the
university systems put out a news release that extolled the contract and
assured that electricity rates would remain stable until at least March 31,
2002, when the contract was scheduled to expire.
When the agreement was reached in 1998, Enron said it was "honored" to serve
UC and Cal State, and the firm boasts on its Web site that the university
systems are "notable customers."
"We were and are proud of the contract," UC's McFadden said. "That's why
we're fighting so hard to preserve it."
UC and Cal State are among the state's biggest consumers of electricity,
paying more than $125 million annually for power. Both systems meet a portion
of their power needs by generating electricity at on-campus plants.
Not all of the universities' campuses have been served by Enron. UCLA, for
example, buys its power from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
and UC Riverside purchases it from the city of Riverside.
=====================================
|
4,167 |
Subject: Dan Walters' article from the Sacramento Bee, November 26, 2000.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2045.
=====================================
Copyright , The Sacramento Bee
Dan Walters: A power crisis imperils Davis
(Published Nov. 26, 2000)
Gov. Gray Davis would appear to be living a charmed political life.
California's economy is soaring, the state's tax coffers -- and Davis' own
re-election treasury -- are bulging, voters are in a complacent mood, and
there have been none of the devastating disasters that plagued the state
during the early 1990s.
There is, however, a very dark cloud casting a shadow over Davis'
governorship: the prospect of rolling blackouts as demand for electric power
exceeds supply, accompanied by tremendous increases in Californians' power
bills. And how Davis handles this incipient crisis could be the hallmark of
his first term -- and, potentially, a re-election issue in 2002.
San Diego utility customers were hit hard last summer as their local utility
emerged from the mandatory rate freeze imposed by the state's 1996 utility
deregulation scheme. Davis and the Legislature responded, in effect, by
buying some time. They enacted legislation rolling back power bills
temporarily, but leaving it unclear whether ratepayers, taxpayers, San Diego
Gas and Electric Co. or power suppliers would eventually eat the wholesale
costs that led to the spikes.
Clearly, Davis was hoping that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) would step in and force the suppliers to refund hundreds of millions
of dollars to SDG&E and its ratepayers. And that, Davis and other politicians
hoped, would also forestall a similar, but much larger crisis looming for
customers of Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the
state's two largest private utilities. The two are still operating under the
rate freeze, but have acquired at least $5 billion in unanticipated wholesale
power costs that they want to pass on to their ratepayers.
Politically, FERC intervention would be the most palatable of the
alternatives because it would place the financial onus on mostly out-of-state
corporations that have little political standing. California politicians have
been demonizing the power suppliers, saying they took advantage of the
deregulation program's auction process to drive up costs far beyond reason.
The problem for Davis and others is that FERC is not cooperating, pointedly
refusing to intervene in a way that the governor wanted. Davis ripped into
the FERC response during a hearing earlier this month, accusing it of
"gutting (California's) ability to protect consumers" and proposing "new and
completely untried market rules, making guinea pigs of California consumers
in yet another reckless deregulation experiment."
Davis wants to appoint himself as the California utility customer's best
friend, hinting that he may lead a "ratepayer revolt" if FERC continues to
refuse to order refunds from suppliers and new price controls. But it's
unclear what he can do concretely, since he's on record as approving the
overall thrust of deregulation and since many of the business interests he
has cultivated to obtain his re-election funds have benefited from having
power suppliers compete for their business.
Doing nothing could mean that when Southern California Edison and PG&E emerge
from the rate freeze, they will raise rates dramatically, just as Davis is
seeking re-election in 2002.
The utilities seem to be offering Davis a deal: allow them to begin raising
rates now to recover their "stranded costs" for wholesale power and they will
avoid sticker-shock raises in 2002.
Another option would be for Davis to spend some of the state's billions of
surplus dollars to either ease the impact on ratepayers or put the state into
the power supply business itself.
The only certainty is that unless FERC reverses itself, Davis will remain on
the hook for whatever happens -- the sort of unpredictable situation that he
hates to encounter.
DAN WALTERS' column appears daily except Saturday. Mail: P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, 95852; phone: (916) 321-1195; fax: (916) 444-7838; e-mail:
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,168 |
Subject: Draft of Ken's itinerary
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11956.
=====================================
I know Bev is working on other meetings, but this is what I think we have=
=20
thus far.
D R A F T
ITINERARY FOR KLL
AUSTIN/CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001
7:15 a.m. - Depart for Austin from Enron Aviation
17630 Chanute Road, 281-443-3744
Falcon 900 EX (N5737)
PILOTS: Don Martin and Darvin Mitchell
PASSENGERS: K. Lay, Dick Weekley, Jodie Jiles, Charles Miller, Jeff=20
Dasovich, Mike Tribolet
FOOD: Breakfast on board
7:45 a.m. - Arrive Austin Bergstrom International, FBO Signature FSO
(512) 476-5451
Carey van to take you to Four Seasons
(512) 929-5009 Conf. # 062895
8:15 a.m. - Executive Committee Meeting of the Governor=01,s Business Coun=
cil
to Four Seasons Hotel
9:00 98 San Jacinto Blvd.
512/478-4500
Boardroom 516
General Meeting:
8:45 a.m. - Registration and Breakfast
to Ballroom A
9:10 a.m.
9:10 a.m. - Chairman=01,s Report
to Welcome
9:30 Ratification of Executive Committee Action(s)
Election of Directors
9:30 a.m. - Energy Panel
to =20
10:15=20
10:15 a.m. - Carey van to take you to the hangar and return to wait for
others as directed at Governor=01,s Business Council.
10:45 a.m - Depart for Los Angeles, CA.
PASSENGERS: K. Lay, Jeff Dasovich, Mike Tribolet
FOOD: Fruit & Cheese tray and lunch on board
11:22 a.m. - Arrive Los Angeles International, FBO Garrett AV. SVCS
310-568-3901
Carey sedan to take you to the Beverly Hilton, Conf. #01521191,
310-275-4153
12:15 p.m. - Arrive at The Beverly Hilton=20
to 9876 Wilshire Blvd.
1:30 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Join Governors=01, luncheon and political overview in progress
Versailles Room
1:45 p.m. - Breakout Sessions
to Session 2: The Energy Crisis and Its Impact in the States
3:00 Royal Suite
3:00 p.m. - Carey sedan to take you to Rosemead, CA.
=20
4:00 p.m. - Meeting with John Bryson, Chairman and CEO
Edison International
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Contact: Maddie Peters 626-302-2267
5:00 p.m. - Carey to drive you to Los Angeles International
6:00 p.m. - Depart for Sacramento, CA
Passengers: K. Lay, Jeff Dasovich
=20
6:50 p.m. - Arrive Sacramento International, FBO General Aviation
916-874-0720
Carey Sedan to drive you to the hotel, con# WA111260-1/2
916-485-7268
Overnight:
The Hyatt Regency Sacramento
1209 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-443-1234
Fax: 916-321-3799
Pilots overnight:
Residence Inn Marriott, 916-920-9111
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001
8:00 a.m. - Meeting with David Freeman
to your suite at the Hyatt Regency=20
10:00 w/Steve Kean
Contact: Robin at 916-322-6988
Sedan to take you to the Capitol or as directed
10:30 a.m. - Meeting with Jim Brulte
Capitol =01) Room 305 in the restored section
Contact: Susan Mahea=20
916-445-3688
=20
11:00 a.m. - Meeting with Senator John Burton
Room 205
Scheduler: Linda
916-445-1412
12:00 noon - Possible lunch with Assembly Member David Cox
Scheduler: Cheyene =01) 916-319-2005
1:00 p.m. - Meeting with House Speaker Robert Hertzberg
916-319-2040
2:00 p.m. - Meeting with John Campbell
Room 2174
Contact: Matt Back
916-319-2535
6:00 p.m. - Depart for San Francisco
(estimated) PASSENGERS: K. Lay, Steve Kean, Jeff Dasovich
6:20 p.m. - Arrive San Francisco International, FBO Signature Flight Supp=
ort
650-877-6800
Carey sedan to take you to the hotel and Steve to Hyatt Regency.
415-468-7550
Overnight: =20
The Park Hyatt San Francisco
333 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-392-1234
Fax: 415-421-2433
Pilots overnight:
Airport Marriott, 650-692-9100
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2001
9:00 a.m. - Meeting with Bob Glynn, Chairman, CEO & President
PG&E
One Market Street, Speer Tower
Suite 2400
Contact: Michelle 415-267-7110
=20
10:00 a.m. - Possible visit to Enron office
101 California St., Suite 1950
10:30 a.m. - Carey to take you to the airport
11:00 a.m. - Depart for Houston
PASSENGERS: K. Lay, Steve Kean
FOOD: Sandwich tray
4:06 p.m. - Arrive Houston
=====================================
|
4,169 |
Subject: Nokia Expects to Meet Earnings Forecast Despite Lowered Sales,
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10013.
=====================================
Nokia Expects to Meet Earnings Forecast
Despite Lowered Sales, Industry Outlook
Dow Jones Newswires
HELSINKI, Finland -- Despite market conditions that have cut into its sales
growth, Nokia Corp. said Thursday that it expects to meet its earnings target
for the first quarter of 2001, thanks to better-than-anticipated profit
margins.
Nokia estimates it is likely to earn 19 European cents a share in the first
quarter, in line with estimates it provided in January.
Nokia's shares received a boost from the statement, rising 2.60 euros, or
11%, to 27.15 euros in early-afternoon trading in Helsinki. In midday trading
in the U.S., shares of Nokia were up $3.20, or 15%, to $25 on the New York
Stock Exchange.
The company said it expects year-on-year sales growth in its networks
division during the first quarter to be 30% to 35%, and 15% to 20% in the
mobile-handsets division. Total sales growth is expected to be around 20%,
the company said.
That is lower than the 25% to 30% sales growth the company forecast in
January, when it released full-year results for 2000. The company said it has
had to confront "difficult market conditions," particularly in the U.S.
"We feel confident about our strengths and our performance during the early
months of the year," Nokia Chairman and Chief Executive Jorma Ollila said.
"Despite the more difficult market conditions, we have been able to show good
progress. We expect to see solid growth for the first quarter as a whole,
with better-than-anticipated margins."
As a result of the tougher conditions, Nokia said it now expects global
handset sales for 2001 to be between 450 million and 500 million units. It
had previously forecast a range of 500 million to 550 million units, saying
sales near the bottom end were more likely.
1Motorola Announces More Job Cuts In Wireless-Phone Handset Business (March
14)
2Ericsson Issues Profit Warning Amid Sagging Economy, Sales (March 13)
3Ericsson to Outsource Handset Sector to Stem Losses in Consumer Goods (Jan.
29)
Just last year, manufacturers were expected to sell about 650 million
cellphones world-wide in 2001, but the industry is slumping as many consumers
delay buying or upgrading their phones.
Nokia's statement comes three days after Swedish rival Telefon AB L.M.
Ericsson warned that it expected a substantial loss in the first quarter
because of slowdowns in both its handset and networks businesses.
And Motorola Inc. of the U.S. said Tuesday that it will slash 7,000 jobs in
its cellphone- and pager-manufacturing business, and will take a
still-unspecified charge against first- and second-quarter earnings.
Including the latest cuts, Motorola has set plans to eliminate 18,000 jobs
since December, or 12% of its 147,000-member work force.
Ericsson, meanwhile, has taken the unusual step of deciding to outsource its
entire phone production to a third party -- a major retreat by a company once
famous for manufacturing the most-sophisticated cellular phones in the world.
Nokia said it has reacted to the changing market conditions by accelerating
programs to improve efficiency and cut costs, but it didn't provide details.
The company also said it has widened its market share in the handset market
above the 32% it achieved in 2000. And it said its own stock levels, as well
as the stock levels of Nokia phones already shipped to stores, are lower than
at the end of 2000.
"More challenging times like these test your mettle as a company," Mr. Ollila
said. "We believe that truly great companies emerge from challenging times
much stronger."
The company said it would comment further on its performance on April 20,
when it releases first-quarter results.
URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB984654324403927366.djm
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1)
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB984492874612250695.djm
(2)
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB98440752335536227.djm
(3)
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB980501096275845838.djm
=====================================
|
4,170 |
Subject: RE: SBX2 78 HEARING CANCELED
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1861.
=====================================
We'll review and let you know. Thanks and have a good weekend.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Govenar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 5:33 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Rick Shapiro; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Jeff
Dasovich; Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Susan J Mara; Hedy Govenar;
Bev Hansen; Mike Day
Subject: RE: SBX2 78 HEARING CANCELED
Carole Migden indicated that they were going to meet again on Tuesday. I
followed up with Keith prior to Appropriations and he was very disappointed
that he and Bill Leonard could not round up more votes. They knew the
liberals would make a play and thought on a policy level they were better
off pushing a better bill than allowing a bad bill to go through along party
lines. However, Republicans are well aware of the polling and think this
issue is better left to the Democrats. Perhaps the liberal play will
energize Republican members. As for moving to the left, it did not appear
as if Hertzberg was moving left because the amendments seemed to be offered
without his consent which is why the hearing was stopped so abruptly. If in
fact they are going to stay left and the amendments they presented this
morning wind up in the bill, what does Enron think? I have already
forwarded the DA amendments to Jeff, Jim and Mike Day. I will send the
additional amendments momentarily.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:52 PM
To: [email protected]; Rick Shapiro; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul;
Jeff Dasovich; Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Susan J Mara; Hedy
Govenar; Bev Hansen; Mike Day
Subject: RE: SBX2 78 HEARING CANCELED
Thanks, Scott. Though the chances of re-kindling a bi-partisan,
centrist deal among Rs, Ds and Davis are extremely small. Richmond
(Republican leading Assembly efforts) has agreed to stay in touch with
Bev over the weekend in the very unlikely event that something rekindles
between Rs and Ds. In the meantime, with Davis and the Assembly Ds
drifting back to the left, we'll need to redouble our own efforts to
make sure we don't lose the ground we've gained. Scott, are they
meeting again on Monday, or Tuesday?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Govenar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:57 PM
To: Rick Shapiro; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Jeff Dasovich;
Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Susan J Mara; Hedy Govenar; Bev
Hansen; Mike Day
Subject: SBX2 78 HEARING CANCELED
The Assembly Appropriations Committee canceled the SBX2 78 hearing
mid-way
through the presentation by Senator Polanco. As Hedy indicated before,
with
the Republicans not willing to vote for the bill, liberal Democrats
crafted
11 new amendments which they felt were necessary in order to garner
their
votes. Clearly there was no consensus among committee members or
leadership
on the amendments in question and the business community was up in arms.
Amid the confusion, Hertzberg effectively ordered the hearing canceled.
They intend to hear the bill again on Monday.
**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at [email protected] and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,171 |
Subject: CEC report issued today saying there is no supply problem next
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3684.
=====================================
Greetings:
The CEC issued a report today that says that unless the ISO experiences
"extraordinarily high" temperatures next year there is no supply problem.
IEP is reviewing this document and will provide further correspondence as we
prepare a response.
If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call.
Thanks,
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
The report can be found at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2000-11-20_300-00-006.PDF
The Press Release:
California Energy Commission Report Released
Summer of 2001 Electricity Supplies Better Than
Expected
Sacramento -- California should have enough power to meet its
electricity demand next summer, unless the State experiences extraordinarily
hot
Weather, according to a study released today by the Energy Commission.
"With new resources coming on-line and new conservation measures taking
effect, next summer looks better than expected, if we manage our
resources properly," said Steve Larson, Energy Commission Executive
Director.
The study, prepared as part of a response to legislation enacted in
September, quantified the amount of electricity demand and supply expected
in the
summer of 2001. "We produced this analysis from the ground up,"
commented Larson. "We looked at every power plant and source of electricity
available to the State to give us a realistic appraisal of where we
stand for next summer. Energy Commission staff projected expected peak
electricity
demand using three temperature scenarios."
The analysis indicated that under the "most likely" temperature
conditions, next year's electricity peak demand will be 47,266 megawatts,
which reflects
a reduction of 220 megawatts of demand because of new utility and state
energy conservation initiatives. Operating reserve requirements add an
additional 2,200 to 3,000 megawatts demand in order to provide a 7
percent margin, raising the generation needed to a minimum of 50,303
megawatts.
If California experiences a warmer than normal summer, the electricity
system will require 48,845 megawatts plus operating reserve requirements,
which raises the total to 51,882 megawatts. Under this scenario, total
expected resources are 52,550 megawatts. Should the State experience
extremely hot temperatures, which has a 1-in-10 year likelihood of
occurring, 53,104 megawatts will be needed (50,068 megawatts of demand plus
operating reserve requirements), with expected resources of 52,190
megawatts.
An additional 1,888 - 3,087 megawatts of potential generation is
currently under development and may be available for part or all of the
summer.
The Energy Commission's demand forecast takes into consideration
expected economic conditions and household growth in the State. These two
factors influence demand for air conditioning which drives summer peak
demand for electricity. The Energy Commission's staff supply outlook
includes
existing in-state and out-of-state generation; new power plants
expected to be on-line and generating electricity by August 1, 2000; and
electricity
imports and exports. The supply outlook also includes new renewable
energy projects and energy efficiency measures and initiatives made possible
by
funding under AB 970, which was approved by the Governor in September,
2000.
California's electricity demand is growing at 2 percent per year. To
ensure that there are adequate supplies of electricity to meet future
demand, it will
be important to add new, efficient generation as well as to implement
energy efficiency and demand reduction strategies.
Since restructuring occurred in March 1998, the Energy Commission has
approved six major power plant projects with a combined generation
capacity of 4,708 megawatts. In addition another 15 electricity
generating projects totaling over 7,000 megawatts and an estimated capital
investment
of more than $4 billion are being considered for licensing by the
Commission.
The report, Summer of 2001 Forecasted Electricity Demand and Supplies,
is available on the Energy Commission's Web Site at:
=====================================
|
4,172 |
Subject: BELLS URGE FCC TO EASE SEC. 271 BARRIERS ON INFORMATION SERVICES
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2248.
=====================================
FYI...
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/05/2000 02:50 PM -----
[email protected]
12/05/2000 10:09 AM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecom Services: Information Services, U.S.: BELLS URGE FCC TO
EASE SEC. 271 BARRIERS ON ...
BELLS URGE FCC TO EASE SEC. 271 BARRIERS ON INFORMATION SERVICES
12/04/2000
Communications Daily
(c) Copyright 2000 Warren Communications News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Congress made it clear that information services are exempt from regulatory
restraints of Sec. 271 so FCC should ease its restrictions, Bell companies
told Commission in comments Nov. 29. Bells urged agency to revise rules that
have kept them from offering Internet access and other information services
on interLATA basis. At very least, Quest suggested, FCC should allow Bells to
offer information services when they lease transmission component from other
carriers.
FCC is in definitional dispute over whether information services can be
defined as "telecommunications services" -- and thus subject to Sec. 271
barriers (CD Nov 29 p1). It has categorized them that way, which has kept
Bells from offering information services across LATA lines. However, in
response to court appeal by Verizon and Qwest, FCC asked for and got remand
so it could reconsider issue.
Qwest argued in its comments that definitions were clear: Telecommunications
is defined in Telecom Act as transmission of information without changing
form or content, and since information services change content, then can't be
considered telecom. Fact that information services often include transmission
components doesn't turn them into telecom services, Qwest said. At very
least, Commission should rule that Bells can provide InterLATA information
services if they don't use their own transmission component, Qwest said:
"There is no theory under which the BOCs can be prohibited from providing
these services when the transmission component is acquired from another
carrier."
FCC initially ruled that ban on interLATA services didn't apply to
information services, then changed its mind, Verizon said. Agency "had it
right" first time and later decision "was inconsistent with the definitions
in the Act," Verizon said. BellSouth agreed: "Because Congress neither
defined the term 'interLATA service' to include 'information services' nor
expressly included 'information services' in Section 271's prohibition, a
BOC's offering of an information service using interLATA telecommunications
does not implicate Section 271's prohibitions."
CompTel called Bells' arguments "self-serving," saying those companies have
argued on both sides of issue in recent years, depending on whether it helped
or hindered them. For example, CompTel said, BellSouth argued in 1997 that
out-of-region interLATA services included out-of-region information services.
CompTel said argument was made to gain exemption from separate affiliate
requirement. Similar argument was made by Ameritech in another case, CompTel
said. Assn. urged FCC not to let Bells stir up concerns of other Internet
providers by saying issue could lead to regulation of all ISPs. "Congress
intended to include `information services' within the definition of
`interLATA services' in order to prevent the BOCs from abusing their local
market power," CompTel said. -- Edie Herman
Folder Name: Telecom Services: Information Services, U.S.
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 69
______________________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
4,173 |
Subject: Many Power Deals Announced By Calif Gov Still Not Final
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9732.
=====================================
Many Power Deals Announced By Calif Gov Still Not Final
By Jason Leopold
03/07/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
OF DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
(This article was originally published Tuesday.)
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--Many of the long-term power supply contracts
announced by California Gov. Gray Davis this week remain under negotiation or
are the subject of ongoing lawsuits, power suppliers said Tuesday.
The lack of finality to the deals raises questions about the state's success
in covering its power needs, particularly going into what is expected to be
an unusually tight summer.
Generators said privately they were surprised the governor went ahead with
his announcement Monday, given that many of the contracts haven't been signed.
David Freeman, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, who negotiated the contracts on behalf of the state, conceded that
details remain to be worked out.
"This is not a done deal," Freeman said, adding that credit concerns are
keeping generators from signing the deals.
Davis announced Monday that California has secured 40 long-term contracts
that will provide California with about 629 million megawatt-hours of
electricity over 10 years, at a price of more than $40 billion.
Several of those forward deals, however, involve contracts originally held by
Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison and PG&E Corp.
(PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric at the California Power Exchange,
previously the state's main power market.
The governor seized those contracts earlier this year, just before the Power
Exchange liquidated them to cover hundreds of millions of dollars in power
bills the utilities had failed to pay.
The contracts, which total about 1.3 million megawatt-hours of electricity
and have a market value of about $1 billion, according to market sources,
have yet to be paid for or signed over to the state. Duke Energy (DUK), one
of the suppliers that sold the contracts to Pacific Gas & Electric and
Southern California Edison, has sued Davis for unlawfully commandeering those
contracts.
Although Duke has reached an interim settlement to continue providing power
to the state Department of Water Resources until April 30, the company and
the Davis administration still have to "develop a comprehensive long-term
settlement to pay for the power supply contracts," said Duke spokesman Tom
Williams.
The governor went ahead with the announcement, because the California
Department of Water Resources believes it will be able to finalize and sign
the contracts over the next several weeks, Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio
said.
Separately, several suppliers named in the governor's announcement Monday -
including Duke, Reliant Energy Inc. (REI), Mirant Corp. (MIR), Sempra Energy
(SRE), Enron Corp. (ENE) and Avista Corp. (AVA) - said they have yet to sign
final agreements with the state, although negotiations were ongoing.
"We are working in good faith with the DWR toward a long-term contract," said
Art Larson, spokesman for Sempra Energy Resources, a unit of Sempra Energy
(SRE). Larson said Sempra signed a terms of agreement with the DWR and
expects to reach a final agreement over the next several weeks.
Reliant Energy said it has only signed a short-term contract with the state
that expires in about two weeks. The company will only sign a long-term
contract once it's paid more than $400 million owed by Pacific Gas & Electric
and Southern California Edison, spokesman Richard Wheatley said.
Mirant Corp. said it also won't sign contracts with the state until it's
paid.
Enron said it's reached agreement on terms with the state, but has some
credit-related details to hammer out.
"Everything's been agreed to except for some credit technicalities," Enron
spokesman Mark Palmer said.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
[email protected]
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,174 |
Subject: Yahoo! News Story - California Sets Criminal Probe of Power Prices
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27812.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Linda Robertson/NA/Enron on 06/13/2001 04:00 PM -----
=09Yahoo! News <[email protected]>
=0906/13/2001 03:10 PM
=09Please respond to carin.nersesian
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], [email protected], pat.shortridge@=
enron.com
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Yahoo! News Story - California Sets Criminal Probe of Power=
Prices
Carin Nersesian ([email protected]) has sent you a news article=20
Personal message:=20
California Sets Criminal Probe of Power Prices
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010613/ts/utilities_california_jury_dc_1.=
htm
l=20
=09Home - Yahoo! - My Yahoo! - News Alerts - Help
=09
=09
=09
=09
=09Home=20
=09 Top Stories=20
=09 Business
=09 Tech
=09 Politics
=09 World
=09 Local
=09 Entertainment
=09 Sports
=09 Op/Ed
=09 Science
=09 Health
=09 Full Coverage
=09
=09
=09
=09
=09
Top Stories - Reuters - updated 2:51 PM ET Jun 13 =09
=09
=09Add to My Yahoo!
=09
=09Reuters | AP | AP U.S. | The New York Times | ABCNEWS.com | Ph=
otos =20
| Videos =20
Wednesday June 13 2:51 PM ET=20
California Sets Criminal Probe of Power Prices
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - California Attorney General Bill Lockyer sai=
d=20
on Wednesday he would convene a criminal grand jury next month to investiga=
te=20
whether power generators illegally manipulated energy prices during the=20
state's electricity crisis.
Lockyer, who has been investigating charges of price gouging and market=20
manipulation by major energy companies, said the grand jury probe would aid=
=20
``efforts to get at the truth about energy pricing practices for electricit=
y=20
and natural gas that hit California pocketbooks hard.''
``We will further focus our criminal probe to determine whether the=20
California market was manipulated and profits taken illegally, and whether=
=20
there was fraud against the public,'' Lockyer said in a statement.
The grand jury investigation is expected to examine whether generators work=
ed=20
together -- directly or indirectly -- to drive up electricity and natural g=
as=20
prices by withholding energy, shutting down plants or exploiting the biddin=
g=20
process.
The investigation is slated to begin shortly after July 1, when a new=20
19-member Sacramento County grand jury is seated.
California officials have been seeking evidence that power generators=20
manipulated energy prices during the state's power crisis, which has led to=
=20
six days of rolling blackouts this year and sharply higher wholesale energy=
=20
costs -- rising, in some cases, some 10 times over levels seen last year.
Generators deny any illegal activity, saying the high prices simply reflect=
=20
supply shortages, plant breakdowns, and high natural gas prices. Gov. Gray=
=20
Davis (news - web sites), who has repeatedly slammed the power producers as=
=20
``price-gougers,'' talked by telephone with Lockyer on Monday about the=20
status of his investigation.
``There is a growing body of evidence that may give the attorney general th=
e=20
opportunity to proceed with criminal as well as civil actions,'' Davis pres=
s=20
secretary Steve Maviglio said in a statement.=20
Email this story - View most popular | Printer-friendly format
Archived Stories by Date:
=20
News Resources
Message Boards: Post/Read Msgs=20
Conversations: Start a live discussion=20
News Alerts: Gov. Gray Davis=20
More Alerts: News Bulletins, News, Mobile, Stocks=20
Search News
AdvancedSearch: Stories Photos Full Coverage
Home=20
Top Stories=20
Business
Tech
Politics
World
Local
Entertainment
Sports
Op/Ed
Science
Health
Full Coverage
Copyright =01, 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or=
=20
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior=
=20
written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or=
=20
delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright =01, 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.=20
Questions or Comments=20
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service=20
=====================================
|
4,175 |
Subject: Re: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28990.
=====================================
I couldn't get my computer to pull AB 189 from home. I did talk to Counihan.
His view is that the bill does not repeal the operative provisions of AB 1890
for DA, Sec 365. As I mentioned it does repeal the whereas part, Sec 330.
He agrees, however, that as soon as it passes, the CPUC will implement ABX 1
and vote to kill DA. AReM put out a press statement on the senate passage of
AB 2X78. I think you may have received it.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
07/20/2001 10:28 PM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Scott Govenar <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx
I realize that this note is likely stale, but, FYI, Ms Kassandra's is
mistaken. SB 78 ain't silent on DA. It kills it, period.
I sure hope that ARM is seriously opposed to the bill.
Best,
Jeff
Susan J Mara
07/20/2001 02:14 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx
Aren't we opposing ABXX 78?
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/20/2001 12:12 PM -----
Kassandra Gough <[email protected]>
07/20/2001 12:09 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx
Hi everyone,
I know that AReM is not opposing SB 78xx (Polanco/Sher) because it is silent
on direct access; however, I want to recommend that the position be changed
to oppose. I have spoken with Norm and he asked that I send this out to for
comment.
Please look at the bill and specifically Section 13, on Page 35 (see below).
I believe that if this bill were to become law direct access in SCE's,
PG&E's and SDG&E territories (I believe the section stands alone so it
wouldn't matter if PG&E accepted the same deal or not) would be dead. In
summary, the bill would essentially allow any IOU to go back into the
generation business and require the CPUC to approve rates that are
sufficient to cover their reasonable cost of operation, investment and
provide for a reasonable rate of return (I don't believe this is cost-based
rates). The CPUC is given broad latitude over conducting proceedings,
issuing orders or anything else that may be necessary to accomplish the goal
of assuring that service provided by IOU's is adequate. Section 13 will
kill competition, eliminate direct access and create new stranded costs.
And, to add insult to injury the State Power Authority may be their partners
in crime.
As to the politics of the bill it was just amended to be a majority vote
bill. Burton has said it is this bill or nothing. SCE is opposing the bill
but there are several lobbyist who think this is all an ambush and SCE would
love this bill.
Please comment on my above analysis. I would love to be wrong on this one.
Kasssandra Gough
Government and Legislative Manager
Calpine
SEC. 13. Section 454.10 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:
454.10. (a) In order to assure that the service provided by electrical
corporations is adequate, the commission may require each electrical
corporation that provides distribution service to make direct investments in
electric generation facilities whose output is dedicated to serve the
customers connected to its distribution grid. (b) After a hearing, the
commission shall approve rates sufficient to enable the electrical
corporation to recover its reasonable costs of operation, its reasonable
investment in the electric generation facilities and a reasonable return on
its investment, in accordance with Section 451. (c) An electric corporation
may meet the obligation described in this section by entering into projects
for electric generation facilities jointly with the California Consumer
Power and Conservation Financing Authority. (d) The commission may conduct
proceedings, enter orders and undertake such actions as it considers
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section.
<<sb 78xx -Polanco.pdf>>
- sb 78xx -Polanco.pdf
=====================================
|
4,176 |
Subject: Re: SoCal CAD Accounts
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/natural_gas_strategy/15.
=====================================
Based on the information below, I've taken the liberty to compile a
spreadsheet of active California-specific commercial gas customers residing
in the HP, STAT, and Altra databases. Included in the data is contact
information, expiration dates, product, price, LDC, volumes, as well as
number of accounts. Unfortunately STAT is the only database that allows
reporting on rate class. I've included that information. As a rule of
thumb, STAT generally houses the smaller commercial, HP, the medium
commercial, with Altra holding the industrial customers.
I hope this helps, Jim
Enron Energy Services
From: Catherine Woods 05/09/2000 09:37 AM
Phone: n/a
To: Foster
cc:
Subject: Re: SoCal Cad Accounts
Here is some additional information on the Socal Saga........
---------------------- Forwarded by Catherine Woods/DUB/EES on 05/09/2000
09:37 AM ---------------------------
Jeff Dasovich on 05/08/2000 11:21:37 AM
To: Gregory T Adams/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Dave Childress/SFO/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Ray
Hamman/HOU/EES@EES, Timothy J Hamilton/HOU/EES@EES, James Shirley/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: SoCal Cad Accounts
Thanks for the note, Dave. Sounds at least modestly promising and consistent
with Sempra's message that they "want to work to make the market better."
Following up on our call last week, and just to ensure that we're not saying
anything that gets cross-ways with anything you might be discussing with Ron
and Nancy, give me a jingle when you get a chance and let's compare notes.
In the past, Socalgas has done a good job of boring into the Company and
having different discussions with different folks.
Also, Greg, if you have at your fingertips the profile of our California
customer base by class in the aggregate---large industrial, commercial, small
commercial & rez---that would be extremely useful info to have (i.e., how
many, annual demand, average annual demand by class). Finally, I'm assuming
that turning back customers as a result of credit problems or lack of
profitability is something we do on a consistent basis? Thanks alot.
Best,
Jeff,
Enron Energy Services
From: Gregory T Adams 05/07/2000 07:56 PM
Phone No: 800 888-8305 x221 Office
888-753-9938 Pager
To: Dave Childress/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Ray Hamman/HOU/EES@EES, Timothy J
Hamilton/HOU/EES@EES, James Shirley/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: SoCal Cad Accounts
Many of these accounts are turned back to the utility because of credit
issues or limited gas volumes make them unattractive.
Catherine, how many of the 30 go back for other than credit or size? Please
advise.
Enron Energy Services
From: Dave Childress 05/05/2000 07:30 PM
Phone No: 562/901-3811
Pager: 888/782-3546
Pager EMail: [email protected]
Mobile: 562/688-9457
To: Gregory T Adams/HOU/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Ray
Hamman/HOU/EES@EES, Timothy J Hamilton/HOU/EES@EES, James Shirley/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: SoCal Cad Accounts
I had lunch today with Ron Kent and Nancy McVay from the Southern California
Gas Company. They are in charge of the Core Aggregation Transport program.
Ron and Nancy have been tasked to encourage customers to switch from the
utility. I have been working with them to find ways in which they can
promote the program with their customers.
They told me that we have been losing core customers back to the utility at a
rate of 30 meters per month. I asked them what they could do to help us hold
on to these accounts. They might be willing to give us a contact that we
could have our customers who have decided to go back to the utility could
call who would explain the benefits of being with a marketer and identify
high prices as general market conditions.
I would have to make this request to them formally and would like to know if
CAD would make use of this resource if the Gas Co. would agree to make it
available.
Dave C.
=====================================
|
4,177 |
Subject: Dow Jones, Tues 3/20: "Calif GOP Lawmakers Ask PUC President To
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10165.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 02:19 PM -----
Joseph Alamo
03/20/2001 01:39 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron
cc:
Subject: Dow Jones, Tues 3/20: "Calif GOP Lawmakers Ask PUC President To
Resign"
Calif GOP Lawmakers Ask PUC President To Resign
Updated: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 02:14 PM?ET
?
?
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--California Assembly Republicans have called for the
resignation of Loretta Lynch, president of the state's Public Utilities
Commission, saying they have no confidence that the state's top regulator
will "play a constructive role in solving the state's energy crisis."
Assembly Republican Minority Leader Bill Campbell, R-Villa Park, sent a
letter Tuesday to Gov. Gray Davis on behalf of the Assembly's Republican
Caucus asking Davis to call for Lynch's resignation.
?
"With efforts to solve California's energy crisis floundering in the midst of
unpaid bills, stalled negotiations and rolling blackouts, it has come time to
ask for the resignation of your appointed president of the California Public
Utilities Commission, Loretta Lynch," the letter said.
Both Lynch and a spokesman for Davis were unavailable for comment.
Lynch, a former attorney, was appointed president of the PUC by Davis in
March 2000. She is the state's top regulator, in charge of regulating
utilities, telecommunications, commercial transportation and water companies.
Before her appointment to the PUC, Lynch was head of Davis's office of
Planning and Research.
The letter says the PUC had a number of opportunities last summer to keep the
electricity crisis from spiraling out of control by allowing Edison
International (EIX, news, msgs) unit Southern California Edison, PG&E Corp.
(PCG, news, msgs) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Sempra Energy (SRE, news,
msgs) unit San Diego Gas & Electric to sign long-term power supply contracts
for about $50 a megawatt-hour, nearly $30 lower than the new long-term
contracts Davis said the state entered into recently with generators.
Lynch's failure to "ensure that the commission's Aug. 3, 2000, emergency
order on long-term contracts was quickly implemented has placed the state
budget at risk for costs now at least 40% higher," the letter said. "This
hesitancy in a crisis will cost California's economy tens of billions of
dollars during the next 20 years."
The state has spent more than $3 billion since January buying power in the
spot market. Davis has asked lawmakers for another $500 million from the
general fund to continue buying power. If the $500 million is granted, the
state's commitment to power purchases will surpass $4 billion.
State Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon, however, said last week that the Senate
Budget Committee will deny further requests for funding unless the PUC carves
out a revenue stream for the state's Department of Water Resources, the
agency that is now buying the bulk of the state's power on behalf of the
cash-strapped utilities.
The PUC was expected to release guidelines last week on rates the DWR can
receive from utilities to pay back the general fund and to issue revenue
bonds to pay for long-term contracts. But the guidelines haven't yet been
released.
Last year, the PUC said the utilities could enter into limited long-term
supply contracts to hedge their positions against price spikes. But the
commission also said it feared if the utilities signed long-term deals with
generators, liquidity in the wholesale market would be reduced.
The Republican lawmakers said the commission is responsible for nearly
forcing the utilities into bankruptcy.
"We have no confidence that Loretta Lynch will play a constructive role in
solving the energy crisis in the weeks and months ahead," the letter said.
"With Wall Street nervous about repayment of the $10 billion in revenue bonds
needed to cover the state's energy purchases, the CPUC has been unable to
perform an adequate assessment of the investor-owned utilities' financial
situation."
-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires;
=====================================
|
4,178 |
Subject: PG&E News Articles dated Thursday, November 9, 2000
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3286.
=====================================
Published Thursday, November 9, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News
PG&E seeks OK to recoup billions
UTILITY ASKS COURT
TO ALLOW COLLECTING
EXTRA FROM CUSTOMERS
Associated Press
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., facing dramatic increases in the cost of
wholesale electricity, asked a federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday
for permission to recoup some $3.44 billion in excess charges from its
ratepayers.
The utility, which has 4.5 million customers across the northern part of the
state, said court intervention was necessary ``to protect the company's legal
rights.''
Federal regulators, the state Public Utilities Commission and other
authorities ``have all acknowledged that the current wholesale power market
is broken and not capable of producing competitive wholesale energy prices,''
said Roger Peters, a senior vice president with PG&E.
``However, there has not yet been any concrete action by regulators to
provide for recovery of the costs we have incurred to purchase the power our
customers must have,'' Peters said.
PG&E earlier sought PUC authorization to obtain the costs, but was rebuffed.
Consumer groups have opposed PG&E's cost-recovery plans, saying the utility,
not its customers, should cover the costs.
The utility operates under a rate freeze and is limited as to how much it can
charge its customers. It has paid four- and fivefold higher costs for
wholesale energy, and by law is unable to pass those charges on to its
customers.
The rate freeze will remain in effect until the company completes its
transition to an open market utility under the provisions of a 1996 law that
deregulated California's investor-owned electric utilities. The transition
entails selling off assets and buying energy in a competitive, open market.
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. completed its transition last year. The utility
passed on the huge wholesale price spikes to its 1.2 million customers,
prompting a political outcry and state, federal and local investigations, and
legislation in Sacramento.
PG&E sues to get costs ruling reversed
By Carrie Peyton
Bee Staff Writer
(Published Nov. 9, 2000)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. sued state regulators in federal court Wednesday
to try to recoup more than $3.4 billion from Northern California electric
customers.
The utility wants to collect, with interest, the money it has paid to
wholesale power suppliers. State regulators are still studying the issue, but
so far have ruled that certain collections are forbidden because electric
rates were temporarily frozen under a 1996 state law.
That line of reasoning is "in defiance of federal law," PG&E attorneys wrote,
asking the U.S. District Court in San Francisco to order the state Public
Utilities Commission to reverse its stand.
PUC rulings have "caused PG&E severe financial harm and threaten the safety
and reliability of the state's electrical supply," PG&E's request for a
federal injunction said.
Wednesday's action takes PG&E's drive to collect higher rates into a third
arena, with a fourth -- the state Legislature -- widely expected to get
involved soon.
PG&E has already asked the PUC for permission to collect more money, and it
has already appealed one unfavorable PUC decision as far as the state Supreme
Court, where it is still pending. The latest step surprised no one.
"It's the very suit we expected," said Timothy Sullivan, adviser to PUC
Commissioner Henry Duque.
PG&E said it still wants to work with policy makers to find ways to bring
sky-high wholesale electricity prices back down to earth.
"We have taken every step the state would allow to try to keep power costs
down," general counsel Roger Peters said in a prepared statement, but the
latest court action is critical for "protecting our financial viability."
The legal theory that PG&E is using has not been tested under circumstances
of a partly deregulated electricity market, said Nettie Hoge, executive
director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group.
"I think they're dreaming. Maybe they should go to the World Court next," she
said.
=====================================
|
4,179 |
Subject: Make us work for your investments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['ft.com.users":@enron.com']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4467.
=====================================
-----------------------Advertisement-----------------------
AIG - World Leaders in Insurance and Financial Services.
Providing a broad range of commercial and personal insurance
products, financial services and asset management throughout
the world. See website for details.
http://www.aig.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear FT.com user
*** Contents ***
1. FT.com - Comprehensive financial markets coverage
2. FTMarketWatch.com - Share and fund investment intelligence
3. FT Expat - Opportunities for the overseas investor
4. Ease the strain of the Festive Season - do your
Christmas shopping; save postage and send your
friends an FT.com e-card
To help you keep abreast of today=01,s volatile stocks and fast-moving
markets, Financial Times journalists report on each major market as it
opens, bringing you the latest news and informed commentary from around
the world.
The growth of the Internet has been a double-edged sword for investors.
The world wide web has opened up access to an abundance of online
investor information - but how can you be sure that what you find is
reliable and up-to-date?
To ensure that your investment decisions are based on the best global
intelligence - click on the links below:
1. *** FT.com ***
News, market prices and commentary, world indices, analyst rankings,
discussion forums and much more at:
http://markets.ft.com
2. *** FTMarketWatch.com ***
A subscription-free site aimed at European private investors, giving
real-time news and commentary on share and fund investing. Benefits of
registration include access to a multi-currency portfolio tool with
asset allocation and charting as well as an intra-day market update by
e-mail. Register today and you could win o7,500 to invest in shares or fund=
s.
http://ft.marketwatch.com/fte1.asp
FTMarketWatch.com has increased its coverage of fund investing:
Interviews, commentary and insight into Europe=01,s leading mutual fund
managers keep you informed on what they are buying and selling and how
their strategies affect you.
http://ft.marketwatch.com/news/funds.asp
UK and US fund data added into our quote, charting and portfolio
functions, so that you can analyse the performance of current and
potential fund investments.
http://www.ftmarketwatch.com/lib/common/symbollookup.asp
3. *** FT Expat ***
Opportunities for the overseas investor:
This is a site specifically for expatriates, executives on offshore
assignments and international investors. FTExpat.com is an
information-rich environment providing researched opportunities in
offshore finance and investment as well as delivering solutions to
enhance the unique expatriate lifestyle.
http://www.ftexpat.com
4. *** Ease the strain of the Festive Season ***
Don=01,t forget to visit our Seasons Greeting site on FT.com for last
minute Christmas shopping.
http://specials.ft.com/timeoff/seasonsgreetings/
Haven=01,t found the time to post off your cards? Send an FT.com Seasons
Greetings e-card.
http://www.ft.com/ecard00/
Happy holidays to all our FT.com users from the team at the Financial
Times Group.
Regards,
FT.com
PS: Increase your 'Business IQ' - FREE for Two Weeks at Ftdynamo.
Cherry-pick from the world's most respected and influential sources of
management thinking with expert in-house insight and analysis. FTdynamo
is the new management portal that allows you to increase your business
wisdom online. Try it FREE for two weeks at:
http://www.ftdynamo.com/subscribe.cfm?level=3Dtrial&r=3Dfs1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why not forward this e-mail to a friend or colleague who may
find this information useful?
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you no longer wish to receive further e-mails from FT.com,
please send an e-mail to: [email protected]
with the single word "unsubscribe" as the subject of the message.
Your name will then be removed from our mailing list.
If you have forgotten your password for FT.com, please visit:
http://registration.ft.com/registration/passwordLookup.jsp
=====================================
|
4,180 |
Subject: Transmission Grid Funds Sapped by Power Crisis Energy: As major
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2279.
=====================================
Business; Financial Desk
Transmission Grid Funds Sapped by Power Crisis Energy: As major changes are
pondered, not enough is being invested in upgrading lines that take
electricity from producers to buyers, study says.
NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
10/11/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page C-1
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company
With attention focused on building more power plants and using less energy to
solve the country's electricity problems, the high-voltage transmission grid
has become "gridlocked in a tangle of infrastructure problems and regulatory
uncertainty," according to a study released Tuesday.
The transmission business is at a crossroads: The operation of high-voltage
electricity lines around the country is about to undergo major changes at the
behest of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will soon accept
electric company proposals on new structures for managing utility
transmission facilities.
But because of the resulting uncertainty--as well as community resistance to
new construction--not enough money is being invested to expand and upgrade
the high-voltage lines that take electricity from producers to consumers.
This lack of investment could hinder the growth of competitive markets,
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a respected energy consulting firm,
said in a study titled "High Tension: The Future of Power Transmission in
North America."
California's electricity crisis could be eased, for instance, if the state
could get its hands on electrons from Texas, where there is a surplus, the
Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm said. But the two states belong to regional
transmission grids with little interconnection, a situation that provides
safeguards should huge power failures occur but limits how much one region
can help another.
"These are the highways for electrons, and we need better roads," said Jan
Smutny-Jones, chairman of the California Independent System Operator, which
operates the long-distance transmission for most of the state. "What we're
talking about here is fundamental infrastructure, and we need to make sure
there is sufficient investment made to move the power around."
Smutny-Jones, who also heads a trade group for power generators, agreed that
the U.S. transmission system faces serious challenges, but he noted that
Cal-ISO has approved $800 million in system upgrades and is looking at more.
Said Larry Makovich, a CERA senior director specializing in the North
American power industry: "Electric transmission and its future has become a
central focus and strategic uncertainty for the North American electric power
industry."
The U.S. power grid is a patchwork operating under different rules and was
not designed to send power across regions--"the job it is now being called
upon to do," Makovich said. "This imbalance between system capacity and
supply and demand has contributed to well-publicized problems in California
and other parts of the country."
Federal energy regulators have not specified what these so-called regional
transmission organizations should look like, although FERC has said utilities
should not control the long-distance transmission lines so new competitors
can more easily enter the market.
In California, the long-distance transmission grid owned by publicly traded
utilities, which serves about 75% of the state, is run by Cal-ISO, a
Folsom-based nonprofit corporation set up by the state's 1996 electricity
deregulation law. California's serious electricity problems this year have
whipped up strong criticism of the structure of Cal-ISO and a sister agency,
the California Power Exchange, which runs the state's electricity market.
The California Municipal Utilities Assn. on Thursday advocated replacing
Cal-ISO with a new ratepayer-owned system that would own and operate
electricity transmission lines in the state, including those of the municipal
utilities. Cal-ISO's defenders said the system worked efficiently under
extreme conditions this summer, which saw record wholesale power prices and
threatened blackouts.
=====================================
|
4,181 |
Subject: Re: ARM met w/ Mike Florio
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3417.
=====================================
Been on two panels in the last two weeks with Florio--most recent yesterday.
Dan Richard of PG&E was also on yesterday's panel. Mike has now come so far
as to push the "core/noncore" split a la the gas industy publicly (if you
just wait long enough, people come around). Dan Richard did not object. I
am pretty suspect about PG&E, though. Dan Richard said things like:
I'm one of the people in my company who believes that, over time, the utility
should exit the procurement function, but many policy makers want PG&E to act
as a "quasi-governmental" body offering reliable, low cost service to small
customers.
I don't think anyone wants anyone's mother to be thrown to the competitive
market willy nilly.
People have to understand that the large customers are going to take all of
the "good" power, leaving the "dregs" for small customers.
While I'm skeptical of PG&E--Dan said what he knew people wanted to hear but
there was little conviction behind the words--there is certainly an opening
that we should try to exploit.
In addition, Florio is now publicly agreeing pretty strongly that the gas
model for utility procurement is one that merits a heck-of-a-lot of
attention, i.e., set a benchmark, get the CPUC out of the way, and let the
utility live or die by the benchmark.
There's daylight among the stakeholders, but a very large amount of
uncertaintly regarding whether the administration, its appointees, and/or the
Legislature will get on board.
Best,
Jeff
[email protected]
11/13/2000 06:37 PM
To: [email protected], jdasovic%[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: ARM met w/ Mike Florio
ARM had a good meeting with Mike Florio, TURN, on Friday on defining the
utilities default role and more rationale to the forward contracting. My
walk away was as follows:
1. TURN agrees with the big guys out first, and the utilities default role
defined to residential and small commercial customers. Where you draw the
line (20 kW, 50 kW or 100 kW) is probably debatable.
TURN thinks SDG&E will be receptive, PG&E is thinking along similar lines
and that SCE is most resistant, but could be coaxed.
He thinks that CMTA/CLECA probably don't like it, but they will be in the
minority. He met w/ John Stevenson, Governor's staff, who was receptive,
as was Carl Wood.
2. He agreed that you need definition of the utilities default role to
provide direction on forward contracting. Although, we all recognized that
the rules around reasonable behavior were preventing utilities from
entering into contracts. We discussed up-front reasonableness. Mike
seemed to be warming to the virtues of a competitive bid process in
determining a reasonable price.
3. The idea of competitive default provider may need some proving. He
felt SDG&E was the best place to start. Michael Shames, UCAN, seems
interested in the idea.
4. An important component of default service, at least initially, is
certainty of price for small consumers. We discussed different ways of
providing certainty. The utility could set a price, up front, and have to
manage its costs to meet that price. No balancing account. Utilities at
risk/reward. We also discussed ways to keep the utilities honest on the
price. One way is competitive default provider. Another way is
competitive bid for portions of its portfolio.
5. Discussed three components of utility procurement: existing
generation, forward contracts and spot purchases. Existing generation
would be valued. Question about whether market prices would establish
price of output or some interim revenue requirement, as proposed by SCE on
its hydro resources. Mike also seems to have softened over future
divestitures so long as there is some kind of interim buy-back contract
with the utility.
Will be at AB 1890 Implementation Group Meeting Tuesday and Wednesday
talking to other parties.
=====================================
|
4,182 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #36
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11749.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW072301.pdf>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 9.4% In terms of stock price performance, last week was
lackluster for the Independent Power Producers. Our composite was down
9.4%, underperforming both the NASDAQ (-2.7%) and the S&P 500 (-0.4%).
International Power was the strongest performer in the group, rising 4.9%.
The Shaw Group was the weakest, falling 15.6%.
2. Mild Weather Exposes Companies with Portfolio Risk We attribute last
week's poor performance to indications that some companies (e.g. CEG and
KSE) are experiencing earnings pressure due to mild weather and its impact
on power market conditions. While investors interpreted these events as a
sign of deteriorating industry fundamentals, we view them as more the result
of company specific portfolio risk, i.e., lack of geographic diversity. We
remain comfortable with our earnings forecasts for the bulk of the major
IPPs. In particular, we highlight our top 2 picks --Calpine and Mirant-- as
having the least portfolio risk owing to a combination of geographical
diversity, stringent hedging policies and a strong risk management skillset.
3. Looking Ahead: Earnings Reports from AES, CPN and NRG This week we
await earnings reports from AES, Calpine and NRG Energy. We believe an
upside surprise is most likely from Calpine, which will report earnings on
Thursday (7/26). Our estimate is $0.30 versus the $0.19 earned last year.
While we expect AES to meet our $0.29 estimate, we believe weakness at its
Brazilian operations has the potential to negatively impact 2001 EPS by
$0.25-$0.30 (see our FC note dated July 16). Following AES's conference
call on Thursday, we will adjust our $1.89 2001 estimate accordingly, unless
management continues to indicate sufficient upside in other parts of its
portfolio.
4. FASB Goodwill Update On Friday (7/20), the FASB published two
standards, Statement 141, Business Combinations, and Statement 142, Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets. The most immediate impact of the new standards
will be the elimination of the requirement that goodwill be amortized. In
this report we outline the EPS impact that results from the cessation of
goodwill amortization for the companies in the power generation sector. In
the near future, we intend to issue separate report where we formally adjust
our 2002 earnings estimates.
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.
- IPW072301.pdf
=====================================
|
4,183 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/946.
=====================================
FYI.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/09/2000 03:57 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
11/09/2000 12:01 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject:
Greetings Folks:
As you know, the Gas Accord is coming to an end and PG&E's trying to figure
out where to go from here. I would argue that what happens with PG&E is
equally, if not more, important as what happens with SoCal.
As you also know, we're faced with a retrograde PUC that, by all accounts,
longs for the "halcyon days" of command-and-control regulation. As such, I
think it would be very useful, and cost-effective, to pull together the
effective coalition we established in the SoCalGas settlement.
In that coalition, some of us contributed dollars and some contributed
experts. I think we should employ that approach again. I asked Mike Day,
who I think most agree, did a pretty good job of representing us in the SoCal
settlement, to make a proposal for representing us in the PG&E case. Mike's
proposal is attached. Finally, if there's anyone else you think we ought to
include in our coalition, please let me know.
Let me know what you think.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Best,
Jeff
***************************************************************************
Jeff:
Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition of
end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord II
proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties in
the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements. We would propose
to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
the parties who agree to join such a coalition. In exchange for joining the
coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on the
GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
any other useful information.
I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings, etc.
However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
partner on the case. I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD attorneys
who would likely have some involvement in the case. Because the majority of
this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
fees. However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
and because several potential members of the coalition are past or existing
clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for all
participants in the coalition. With this discount, these would be the
lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
proceedings will be. Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation in
the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
budgetary estimates. If you require some type of estimation sooner than
that, please let me know.
Thank you for your interest in using our services. Please contact
me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
Mike Day, partner
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
Michael Day $300
James McTarnaghan $260
Jeanne Bennett $220
Alexandra Ozols $130
Heather Patrick, paralegal $ 85
=====================================
|
4,184 |
Subject: Machado:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1092.
=====================================
I thought you might be interested in the attached article from Friday's
Stockton Record.
Machado calls allegations 'a fantasy'
By Jim Sams
Capitol Bureau Chief
SACRAMENTO -- Assemblyman Michael Machado raced to get legislative approval
of a controversial water bill Thursday and along the way got snared in a
bitter feud with Republicans who charge that he insulted two ethnic groups
during an altercation on the Assembly floor.
Machado used some parliamentary maneuvering on the last day of the
Legislature's session in an attempt to win approval of a bill that would set
up a governing board for the CALFED Bay/Delta Program.
Sen. Maurice Johannessen, R-Redding, said Machado sniped a vulgar insult
while he was on the Assembly floor trying to persuade members to reject the
CALFED bill.
Johannessen said he told Machado the bill would hurt his chances at beating
Republican opponent Alan Nakanishi for the 5th Senate District seat. He said
Machado retorted that Republicans should find a candidate who speaks English,
which Johannessen took as a reference to the fact that Nakanishi is
Japanese-American.
Johannessen, a native of Norway who speaks English with an accent, said the
ethnic slurs didn't stop there. He said Machado at one point told him he
should go back where he came from.
"That was a bloody insult as far as I'm concerned," Johannessen said. "I
don't speak that good English, but I got elected to the Senate."
Nakanishi, who heard of Machado's comment indirectly, responded: "I'm sorry
he said that."
"I was born in Sacramento, and I spent my childhood in an internment camp.
Maybe that affected my speech," he said. "But it was good enough for the U.S.
Army and medical school."
Machado said Johannessen's allegations were "a fantasy, a fabrication," but
refused to give his own account of Wednesday night's events.
"I'm not going to respond to this political rhetoric," Machado said.
A third listener, Michael Umbrello, representing the Cahto Tribe of
Laytonville -- opposed to Machado's bill -- said he heard Machado yelling to
Johannessen to go back to where he came from, or something to that effect.
Umbrello didn't hear the entire conversation and didn't know if anything was
said about Nakanishi's English.
Machado's CALFED proposal moved forward Thursday despite strong opposition by
Johannessen and other Republicans. Machado gutted a bill by Sen. Patrick
Johnston, D-Stockton, and inserted amendments to get around Republican
senators who refused to give Democrats the two-thirds majority they needed to
get a rule waiver to allow a hearing on a previous version.
Thursday afternoon, the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee voted to
approve a bill backed by Gov. Gray Davis that would set up an 11-member panel
to oversee the consortium of state and federal agencies that are working
together to restore the Delta and boost state water supplies. That bill
includes creation of an environmental restoration committee made up of state
and federal agency heads that will have authority to buy land and water from
willing sellers.
Late Thursday, Machado was working to move his bill to the Assembly floor,
through two Senate committees and then to a final vote on the Senate floor
before the Legislature's scheduled midnight adjournment.
Republicans charge that the environmental panel will oversee a government
land and water grab. Representatives for Indian tribes and rural water
districts said during the committee hearing Thursday afternoon that the bill
will stack the CALFED board with representatives from Southern California who
are primarily interested in getting more control over the north state's rich
water supplies.
State Resources Secretary Mary Nichols said the bill is necessary mostly to
give CALFED the momentum it needs to start building water-supply projects and
restoring the Delta. She said Congress won't vote on its own governing-board
proposal until next year, and in the meantime the state needs to hire an
executive director and set projects in motion.
---------------------------------
=====================================
|
4,185 |
Subject: Riordan edges out Davis in Field Poll: A survey finds lingering
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/301.
=====================================
Riordan edges out Davis in Field Poll: A survey finds lingering damage from the governor's handling of the energy crisis.
By Amy Chance
Bee Political Editor
(Published Sept. 26, 2001)
Gov. Gray Davis survived the summer without the widespread power blackouts his opponents predicted, but voters remained dissatisfied with his job performance and disinclined to re-elect him, a Field Poll released Tuesday found.
The poll showed Davis narrowly behind in a trial general election matchup against former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, 45 percent to 42 percent.
Riordan's strength in Los Angeles County -- rare for a Republican candidate -- as well as lingering damage to Davis from California's energy crisis were factors in the findings, said the poll's managing director, Mark DiCamillo.
"It's an interesting situation for a sitting governor," he said. "It's very unusual for a sitting governor to be denied re-election, but here we have a unique candidate coming out of a Democratic stronghold. And also we have this issue that is kind of hanging around the neck of the governor that the public is not very pleased about, and that's the energy and the electricity crisis."
In a hypothetical Republican primary, Riordan led by a large margin over Secretary of State Bill Jones, 46 percent to 19 percent. Businessman Bill Simon trailed with 5 percent of the vote, while 30 percent was undecided.
The poll surveyed 1,003 Californians, including 722 registered voters, Sept. 7-10 and is subject to an overall error margin of 3.2 percent.
Davis political adviser Garry South said reporting poll results taken before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the East Coast was "horribly misleading."
"These kinds of watershed events that shake the national psyche always have an effect on job approval," he said. "These kinds of things have effects on the way people feel about incumbents in general."
DiCamillo said he found it notable, however, that views of Davis' performance continued to lag even as voters worried less about the electricity crisis.
In May, at the peak of concern about potential power blackouts, voters said they disapproved of Davis' performance, 49 percent to 42 percent. In the latest survey, they continued to disapprove, 47 percent to 41 percent.
Voters also said they were not inclined to re-elect Davis, 50 percent to 43 percent.
"Now we're in a situation where the energy crisis mentality has receded, yet the public's image of the governor has not changed," DiCamillo said. "He has not benefited from the easing of public concern about the issue and is in the same situation that he found himself back in May.
"No matter what the political temper of the times internationally, there will be issues that are particular to the governor's race. This issue is what the public has focused their attention on in evaluating Davis, and it's still negative."
DiCamillo said he also was struck by the fact that the poll found Riordan leading among voters in Los Angeles County, 47 percent to 43 percent. He said the survey showed similar results in May. Los Angeles County accounts for one-quarter of the state's electorate, and Democrats typically carry it and the Bay Area by large margins, making up for losses in virtually every other area of the state.
Riordan adviser Dan Schnur said the numbers pose a strategic difficulty for Davis.
"It's clear from this poll result that the voters who know Dick Riordan best support him most," he said. "Unless Gray Davis plans on winning the Bay Area by a voice vote, there's no way he can get re-elected unless he turns L.A. County around in a very big way."
South said Riordan, who held a nonpartisan office in Los Angeles, will fare far differently in a statewide partisan contest. And he recalled that then-Gov. Pete Wilson was trailing Democrat Kathleen Brown by 23 points as he prepared in 1993 for re-election.
"We all know how that turned out," he said. "A sitting California governor hasn't been defeated for a second term since 1942."
The Bee's Amy Chance can be reached at (916) 326-5535 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
=====================================
|
4,186 |
Subject: CMTA TAX/GR & Generators: Windfall Profits tax Thurs. meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12035.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/04/2001 09:45 AM -----
Pam Ross <[email protected]>
05/02/2001 05:23 PM
Please respond to pross
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
cc:
Subject: CMTA TAX/GR & Generators: Windfall Profits tax Thurs. meeting
changed to Friday
TO: Kassandra Gough--Calpine
Chris Micheli--Carpenter Snodgrass
Carolyn Baker--Duke Energy
Anne Kelly--Duke Energy
David Parquet--Enron
Jeff Dasovitch--Enron
Tom Allen--Mirant
John Stout--Reliant Energy
Scott Sadler--Reliant Energy
Fred Pownal--Kahl/Pownall Advocates
Fred Main--California Chamber of Commerce
Greg Turner--Cal Tax
Katie Kaplan--IEP
Matt Sutton--AEA
CMTA Energy Committee
CMTA Tax Committee
CMTA Government Relations Committee
FROM: Carrie-Lee Coke/Pam Ross
RE: Friday, May 4 meeting at 1:30 pm in the CMTA conference room
to discuss Windfall Profits Tax bills
Due to a scheduling conflict, we are changing our Thursday, 2:00 pm
meeting to Friday, May 4 at 1:30 pm.
As most of you are aware, CMTA is opposing legislation designed to
impose a Windfall Profits Tax on electricity generator
companies. The bills are SBX1 1 (Soto) and ABX1 128 (Corbett). Please
note that the Soto bill pertains to co-generators as
well as entities exclusively in the power business. That means that
many of you would be directly effected. The other primary
basis for opposition is that the bills would inhibit electrical supply.
Please also note that, to the extent that SBX1 1 (Soto) were
operative, it would impose the "windfall cost" on business taxpayers who
would fund the credit given to personal income tax
taxpayers.
You are invited to our lobbying strategy meeting which will be here at
CMTA's offices at 980 9th Street, Suite 2200
on Friday, May 4 at 1:30 pm. Please RSVP to Pam Ross at 916-498-3320 or
[email protected].
There is a call in number as follows:
Access number: 1-888-727-8686
Conference ID: 900 1325#
TO: Kassandra Gough--Calpine
Chris Micheli--Carpenter Snodgrass
Carolyn Baker--Duke Energy
Anne Kelly--Duke Energy
David Parquet--Enron
Jeff Dasovitch--Enron
Tom Allen--Mirant
John Stout--Reliant Energy
Scott Sadler--Reliant Energy
Fred Pownal--Kahl/Pownall Advocates
Fred Main--California Chamber of Commerce
Greg Turner--Cal Tax
Katie Kaplan--IEP
Matt Sutton--AEA
CMTA Energy Committee
CMTA Tax Committee
CMTA Government Relations Committee
FROM: Carrie-Lee Coke/Pam Ross
RE: Friday, May 4 meeting at 1:30 pm in the CMTA conference room to
discuss Windfall Profits Tax bills
Due to a scheduling conflict, we are changing our Thursday, 2:00 pm meeting
to Friday, May 4 at 1:30 pm.
As most of you are aware, CMTA is opposing legislation designed to impose a
Windfall Profits Tax on electricity generator
companies. The bills are SBX1 1 (Soto) and ABX1 128 (Corbett). Please note
that the Soto bill pertains to co-generators as
well as entities exclusively in the power business. That means that many of
you would be directly effected. The other primary
basis for opposition is that the bills would inhibit electrical supply.
Please also note that, to the extent that SBX1 1 (Soto) were
operative, it would impose the "windfall cost" on business taxpayers who
would fund the credit given to personal income tax
taxpayers.
You are invited to our lobbying strategy meeting which will be here at CMTA's
offices at 980 9th Street, Suite 2200
on Friday, May 4 at 1:30 pm. Please RSVP to Pam Ross at 916-498-3320 or
[email protected].
There is a call in number as follows:
Access number: 1-888-727-8686
Conference ID: 900 1325#
=====================================
|
4,187 |
Subject: Re: California "Fact Sheet"
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/230.
=====================================
On interconnection, I think our approach has been that the ISO should be the
party you have an interconnection contract with, not the utility.
James D Steffes@EES
09/06/2000 05:29 AM
To: Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES, jdasovic, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES, tim belden
Subject: Re: California "Fact Sheet"
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
=====================================
|
4,188 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #26
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12115.
=====================================
Good Afternoon,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW050701a.doc>> <<Fuel Econ.xls>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 1.7% Last week our IPP composite traded off 1.7%,
underperforming both the NASDAQ (+5.6%) and the S&P 500 (+1.1%). AES and
International Power were the strongest performers, rising 2.2%. Orion Power
was the weakest performer, falling 7.1%.
2. California Concerns Capture Center Stage The IPPs took a breather last
week, following investor enthusiasm surrounding strong first quarter
earnings results. Dampening stock price performance, a number of concerns
related to the California power crisis captured center stage and dominated
investor attention.
3. Looking Ahead For the week ahead, while we are not expecting any major
company specific events, we could continue to see a heavy news-flow out of
California In particular, we'll be looking for additional news regarding SB
1X-the windfall profits tax bill. This week it will be considered on the
floor of the California Senate. Also, on Wednesday (5/9), Governor Davis
will meet with a number of generators to discuss the ongoing power crisis.
While 12 generators have been invited to attend the meeting, it is unclear
if all will accept the invitation.
4. 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 MIR
represents one of the best values in the group. The stock is currently
trading at 20.6 times our 2001 EPS estimate, representing a 24% discount to
the group average. Since the beginning of the year, earnings expectations
for Mirant have increased by 58%. 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.
5. Prospects for New Coal and Nuclear-fired Capacity CSFB's monthly
merchant conference call took place on Thursday (5/3). The topic was "The
Future of Generation: Coal and Nuclear." Overall, our guest speakers
concluded that the current environment is ripe for the development of new
coal and nuclear fired power plants. Our analysis indicates that it is
economically attractive for developers to begin pursuing coal and
nuclear-fired power projects. Having said that, given physical construction
and permitting constraints, it could be some time before these fuels become
a major factor on the new plant construction landscape. Attached, please
find a spreadsheet highlighting the relative cost economics of natural gas,
coal and nuclear power plants. This analysis takes into account current
construction costs and a required return of 12%.
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.
- IPW050701a.doc
- Fuel Econ.xls
=====================================
|
4,189 |
Subject: CERA: Study Says Long-Term Power Contracts `No Solution'
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9079.
=====================================
FYI.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/13/2001 10:46 AM -----
CERA: Study Says Long-Term Power Contracts `No Solution'
02/12/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
HOUSTON -(Dow Jones)- Californians will likely see 20 hours of rolling
blackouts spread across the state this summer, as short-term solutions to the
state's ongoing power crisis come too late, according to a report from the
Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
CERA, an international energy consulting company, estimates California will
be short 5,000 megawatts this summer, which will force the state's
independent grid operator to declare some stage of emergency for 200 hours.
However, if consumer rates are allowed to increase before summer,
Californians will likely cut consumption by 1,500 MW, or one-third of the
predicted shortfall, Larry Makovich, a senior director of CERA, said Monday
at a press briefing in Houston.
A California Public Utilities commissioner agreed with the report. "It will
be bad," said Richard Bilas. "We've had no additional generating capacity,
and until we have price signals, it won't get better."
CERA experts said long-term steps California must take to create a
functioning wholesale market include: establishing a capacity requirement and
payment method; streamlining plant siting and approval; resolving the credit
crisis the state's utilities face; ending the consumer rate freeze; avoiding
tinkering with market rules; creating a positive investment climate, and
restructuring the regional transmission grid.
In addition, CERA said California utilities should move to portfolio buying
over the next three years, rather than contracting long-term supplies now.
"Long-term contracts aren't a solution," Makovich said. He added that
utilities could contract for huge volumes of power that will be above the
market price in as little as 18 months, as natural-gas drilling increases,
improving tight gas supply.
One of the problems that led California to restructure its power industry was
the large amount of power under contract under federal law at above-market
prices.
With long-term contracts being discussed at $70.00 a megawatt-hour "we run
the risk of creating a bigger problem," should natural gas prices retreat
over time to around $3.00 a thousand cubic feet, Makovich said.
In addition to the obvious move to improve the state's power supply by
allowing construction of new generating units, the CERA study urged the state
to take several short-term steps to help reduce supply problems this summer,
including: expanding load curtailment programs; encouraging conservation;
providing flexible emission restrictions; coordinating plant outages on an
emergency basis, and providing for flexible hydroelectric facility operations.
"The biggest problem is that we are running out of time," said Steve Kean,
executive vice president at Enron Corp. (ENE), at the briefing on the first
day of CERA's five-day energy conference in Houston.
While the state Legislature has taken steps to restore the credit situation
facing California utilities, the recent disclosure that the Department of
Water Resources isn't buying all the power the state needs "isn't a good way
to keep the lights on," said Joe Bob Perkins, president of Reliant Energy
Inc.'s (REI) Wholesale Group, which owns generation in California. He called
the credit situation "increasingly fragile."
And while California's governor and lawmakers stepped in when the two largest
California utilities appeared headed for bankruptcy, Bilas said a bankruptcy
proceeding might be a way to end rate freezes for California consumers - an
unpopular move that other parties have been unwilling to forcefully pursue.
"A bankruptcy judge will say rates have to go up, costs have to be cut,"
Bilas said. "It's a way to say rates have to go up, but I didn't do it."
-By Eileen O'Grady; Dow Jones Newswires, 713-547-9213;
[email protected]
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,190 |
Subject: California Update p.2; 5/29/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2851.
=====================================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
? Senator Keeley Spearheads a New "Plan B"
? State to Offer Little Aid in PG&E Bankruptcy
Keeley's Collective "Plan B"
Sources report that additional details for the Plan B have just been ironed
out on the Assembly side. The Assembly is working to announce a plan "as
soon as possible"; this announcement could come this afternoon. If it is not
this afternoon, it will be later this week. Sources Report the Republicans
were working with Keeley, but then felt shut out of the process, so they
developed a plan of their own (a lightly publicized point last week).
However, sources believe that the Plan B is very likely to have enough
Republican support to pass the Assembly. The Senate will likely be a much
tougher fight, but opposition to the plan remains pessimistic that they will
be able to stop it. The Senate appears likely to broaden the base of people
who would have to pay the dedicated rate component, which will be unpopular.
Borrowing from elements of the Joe Nation and Florez "Plan B's," Keeley's new
plan is said to:
? Set up a dedicated rate component for SoCal to deal with part of their
undercollect. This dedicated rate component would apply more to "high-end
customers." Where the line would be drawn between who would pay and who
would not is still subject to negotiation. The size of the dedicated rate
component is also subject to negotiation. SoCal has suggested $3M for 10 to
12 years. Note, sources report that at this time, a dedicated rate component
for SoCal to pay for power going forward is NOT included in the Plan B that
will be announced. The Assembly is not certain whether this additional
dedicated rate component will be needed. If the bond issuance is enough to
cover the cost of power purchases, no dedicated rate component for forward
purchases will be needed. By 2003 and 2004, enough additional generation
should be online that power prices should be low. Therefore, the key
question becomes what will be the cost of power in 2002? If the cost of
power is high, rates may have to be increased at that time for SoCal to
continue operating.
? The state would make a secured loan (secured against the transmission
assets) to SoCal to pay back the remainder of the undercollect. This loan
would be paid back by SoCal granting the government a lower rate of return on
the transmission system for a period of 10 to 15 years. This provides an
incentive for SoCal to sell its transmission system to the state, since it
would not be making as much money from the system. Were this to happen, the
value would be credited toward the loan.
? In return, the state would receive the withdrawal with prejudice of the
filed rate doctrine case. Also, SoCal would reduce the price of native power
generation. Finally, business customers (including those that would have to
pay the dedicated rate component) would have the right to apply for direct
access to power.
If this plan is passed, (better than 50/50 chance -as reported earlier) the
constitutional challenge from Michael Sturmwasser is still likely to go
forward. This is because Sturmwasser is chiefly concerned with the fact that
the plan results in a retroactive rate increase to pay SoCal's undercollect.
Sources believe it is likely that SoCal will eventually sell its transmission
assets to the state if this plan is passed. Therefore these assets would
become municipal, making the reduction in the PUC's authority constitutional.
Legislature Leaves PG&E to Throws of Bankruptcy
Today, there have been discussions concerning PG&E regarding "Plan B" and the
legislature. Currently, the legislature is NOT considering offering
Keeley's "Plan B" solution to PG&E. If the Plan B mentioned above passes the
Senate, it is more likely that the state will purchase PG&E out of
bankruptcy. Both the Assembly and the Senate leadership are talking
seriously about purchasing PG&E out of bankruptcy, though the Republicans
remain strongly opposed. The state then, would likely sell off pieces of
PG&E (except for the transmission assets, which it would retain).
=====================================
|
4,191 |
Subject: Get Ken Fisher's Stock Market report Free.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/990.
=====================================
-----------------------------------------------------------
This advertisement has been sent to you by TheStreet.com
because you are currently or within the last year have
been a subscriber (either free-trial or paid) to one of our
web sites, www.thestreet.com or www.realmoney.com.
If you are not a current or former subscriber, and you
believe you received this message in error, please
forward this message to [email protected], or
call our customer service department at 1-800-562-9571.
Please be assured that we respect the privacy of you,
our subscribers, and that we have not disclosed your
name or any other information about you to the
advertiser or any other third party.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Investor:
My name is Ken Fisher. I write the "Portfolio Strategy"
Column for Forbes magazine and serve as Chairman
and Chief Investment Officer of Fisher Investments, Inc.
My firm manages over $7.5 billion for institutions and
high-net-worth individuals.
I recognize you may not be considering doing anything
differently with your investments right now. Regardless,
I'd like to send you a kit of useful insights you can't get
anywhere else free and without obligation.
As soon as you fill out the online-request form, I'll
email you the latest version of my Quarterly Report.
It's designed to be interesting to investors whether they
are interested in the full service we specialize in or
not. The report, which I update with my latest
thinking, highlights my viewpoint on:
- Which stocks to select for investment now
- The right balance between equities, fixed income
securities and cash in this volatile market
- The role mutual funds play in the portfolios
of high-net-worth individuals
- The impact of the Federal Reserve's actions
on your investment strategy
Fisher Investments' latest private Quarterly
Report normally is given, along with their
investment results, only to our clients. Each
one has at least $500,000 in our care.
After you have requested the Report, you will
have the chance to review my Seminar on Money
Management. I strongly encourage you to visit
the Seminar. It reveals the strengths and weaknesses
of management options available to people like yourself.
The reason I'm offering you this extensive intellectual
capital at my expense: I've found educating
high-net-worth investors is good for our investment
management business, whether any individual becomes
a client or not.
Some, for whom our outstanding client service and
strong results are attractive, become clients. Others
simply listen, learn and use our advice to inform their
own management. But they tell their friends, some of
whom prefer to have the details taken care of for them.
Whichever group you fall into, please allow me to
give you the benefit of my firm's original research
and my thinking. I'm certain you'll find it interesting
and useful. And, of course, FREE and without obligation.
Thanks for your attention. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Fisher
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Click here to fill out the Confidential Request Form
and receive your Quarterly Report.
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?I126
Phone: (800) 851-8845 - Fax: (650) 851-3514 - Email: [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------
This advertisement has been supplied by a third party and
has been sent to you by TheStreet.com for informational
purposes only. We are not responsible for and have not
independently authenticated in whole or in part the
accuracy of the information provided in the advertisement.
No such information should be relied upon without
consulting the advertiser. This advertisement does not
imply an endorsement by us
If you would prefer not to receive these types of offers
from us in the future, please reply to
[email protected] with REMOVE
in the subject line.
To view our privacy policy, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
=====================================
|
4,192 |
Subject: NASA SAYS SATELLITE INTERNET SYSTEM COULD HAVE EARTH ROLE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4291.
=====================================
FYI...
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/05/2000 01:13 PM -----
[email protected]
12/05/2000 11:32 AM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecom Services: Satellites, Broadband Services: NASA SAYS
SATELLITE INTERNET SYSTEM COULD ...
NASA SAYS SATELLITE INTERNET SYSTEM COULD HAVE EARTH ROLE
12/04/2000
Satellite Week
(c) Copyright 2000 Warren Communications News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
NASA-Veridian Internet-based satellite control project could have
implications beyond space industry, and much sooner than 10-year time frame
for system's launch, developers say. NASA and Veridian have developed
Internet-based virtual private network and firewall that allows engineers on
ground to control functions in space, freeing astronauts for other jobs. It
was demonstrated Nov. 2 at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Ground industries, including banking, have expressed interest in implementing
version of system for their use. Such a system "depends on what they want to
do. It depends on the robustness of the controls," said James Light, Veridian
deputy dir. of space and network systems. He old us "we could roll out a
security solution within 3 months."
System could save time and money across the board, said Phillip Paulsen,
project mgr. for NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. Among those
interested in new technology, "satellite vendors are very interested because
they look at it as a way to reduce time to build" and validate spacecraft,
Paulsen said. System also would allow problems to be detected earlier, giving
engineers opportunity to fix them before launch. He said data from
Goddard-supplied module that communicated with active satellite in test were
"extremely good."
Paulsen said Veridian supplied its own money for project from its internal
development fund. Company developed virtual private network (VPN) that acts
as firewall that protects user as well as data by setting up encrypted 2-way
communication. Authentication validates user name and password and uses
biometric technology that takes thumbprint and body temperature. System "can
detect if someone attempts to break in or if someone on the inside attempts
to do something they shouldn't do," Paulsen said.
Employees would need thumbprint to access system, and users could leave desk
and others with less access couldn't send commands on active user's log-in.
System also can detect hacking attempts by finding IP addresses and locations
of hackers. During demonstration, "we brought one of our professional hackers
to show some security layers," Light said. Probes also came from Europe,
Japan and U. of Cincinnati. "We could see how deep they got and they didn't
get any information from the probe," Light said.
System also was set up to provide electronic certificates that grant access
for specific times, denying access to people if they try to log on out of
time. Secure Missions Operations Control Center (SMOCC) has database built in
with information on which individuals have access and extent of access.
System also can prioritize access, giving it at specific time to one
researcher and denying it at same time to another. It's configured so that
"worst thing" unauthorized user can do is "run a controlled experiment,"
Paulsen said. Security system leaves no traces of software used to run it; if
a researcher had computer stolen, thief could not access experiments.
Folder Name: Telecom Services: Satellites, Broadband Services
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 75
______________________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
4,193 |
Subject: NEWS: Governor's Press Conference on President Bush's Energy Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12702.
=====================================
* from Govt Affairs
> Governor Gray Davis held a well-attended press conference at the Capitol
> today to discuss his reaction to President Bush's energy plan. In reading
> his prepared statements, Davis spoke as if directly to President Bush and
> FERC. Davis later answered questions from reporters.
>
> The Governor began the press conference by saying he commended the
> President for "facing up to America's energy crisis." However, he added,
> "I fault the President for not providing immediate relief for
> California...[which is] in a war with price-gouging energy companies--many
> of them are in Texas." Davis said that the President needs to be "more
> creative" in his solutions to the energy crisis.
>
> Davis also applauded the President's focus on conservation in his energy
> plan. Davis said, "[California has] $850 million worth of incentives for
> individuals and businesses...to adopt energy-saving measures in their
> homes and businesses." He added that California is the number one state
> in per capita energy conservation.
>
> Davis said he had joined with the governors of Oregon and Washington on
> calling for temporary price caps for the Western states. He explained
> that "Texas earlier this year adopted a temporary form of price relief,"
> and asked why California couldn't do the same. Davis also said one of the
> incoming FERC commissioners is the former head of the Texas PUC, "so there
> has to be a way that California can get temporary price relief."
>
> Davis said of President Bush, "by not doing anything, you are allowing the
> price-gouging energy suppliers to get away with murder."
>
> On the subject of FERC's recent ruling on QFs, Davis said, "it appears to
> give California relief...but is another Trojan horse." He explained, "FERC
> refused to order the contracts be broken...but the effect that will be
> caused allowing them to re-sell the power if they're relieved of the
> obligation to provide it to utilities is that Californians will have to
> pay [for QF power] on the spot market." Davis said that FERC was "giving
> with one hand and taking away with the other." He added, "If [FERC]
> can't give us price relief, just go home."
>
> One suggestion Davis gave for FERC being more creative was to "take a much
> more aggressive approach in ordering..massive, 50% refunds to taxpayers."
> Davis added that "this is an idea I've discussed with [Bush FERC nominee]
> Pat Wood of the Energy Commission."
>
> Davis urged the President to work with FERC to help California saying,
> "The President didn't create this problem, but is the only one who can
> instruct his appointees"
>
> He added, "I told the generators face-to-face, your fate is in your
> hands." He added, "I said to them: If you don't work with me this summer,
> I will sign a windfall profits tax!"
>
> In response to a question on the merits of federal preemption vs. States'
> rights and eminent domain for power plants and power lines, Davis
> reponded, "I'm going to duck that question." He added, "here's why: the
> federal government...on the big issues, has been distinctly unhelpful."
> Davis said he was "inclined to say that more federal power" in this matter
> would not help the situation.
>
> In response to a question on the viability of deregulation, Davis said,
> "In fairness, we don't have true deregulation in this state--I am trying
> to make something work that is unworkable." He added, "deregulation is
> not a religion, it's a theory." Davis said, "according to Allen
> Greenspan, deregulation only works if there is 15% supply above demand"
> and this is not the case in California.
>
> Davis criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and said,
> "Everyone on that commission has forgotten that third word
> "Regulatory"--they found out the prices are unjust and unreasonable and
> did nothing."
>
> In response to a reporter's question on whether Davis believes President
> Bush will come through for California, Davis responded, "I believe the
> President may well in the end do the right thing for Californians...I
> believe he will be creative in his solutions."
>
=====================================
|
4,194 |
Subject: Politicians seek shelter as energy Armageddon looms
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10634.
=====================================
Dan Walters: Politicians seek shelter as energy Armageddon looms
(Published April 4, 2001)
There's been a subtle but unmistakable shift in the political atmosphere that
envelops California's energy crisis.
Politicians have concluded that the crisis is largely beyond their control
and the die is more or less cast. Whatever fate decrees - massive summer
blackouts, soaring utility bills or even the bankruptcy of the state's
utilities - will happen, and politicians from Gov. Gray Davis downward are
scrambling to insulate themselves from voters' anger and single out rivals
for blame.
No one is saying that publicly, of course, but the fatalistic mood is very
apparent in the Capitol, whose denizens have dropped their preoccupation with
energy and moved to other matters. Legislative committees are working on the
hundreds of bills that had been stalled for three months while the special
committees that had been holding almost daily sessions on the energy crisis
have gone into semihibernation.
Last weekend's Democratic state convention in Anaheim was dominated by fears
that when the crisis hits home, the party's dominance of the Capitol will
backfire. "Just remember Jimmy Carter," state Controller Kathleen Connell
warned fellow Democrats, adding that they will have "no excuses" for
perceived failure to deal with the crisis forthrightly. "We will be
accountable on Election Day 2002," she said.
Next year's elections are very much on Davis' mind, since he'll be seeking a
second term and polls indicate that his approval ratings have declined
sharply in recent weeks. He devoted much of the weekend to defending his
actions, saying, "I believe we've moved at warp speed to address this
problem," and trying to pin blame on Republicans.
Republicans, meanwhile, sense that the crisis gives them an avenue of escape
from the dungeon of irrelevancy to which they had been exiled by heavy losses
in the last three elections. The only remaining statewide GOP officeholder,
Secretary of State Bill Jones, is running for governor by accusing Davis of
mismanagement, and Republican Assembly members dumped their leader, Bill
Campbell, on grounds that he had been insufficiently aggressive vis-a-vis
Davis.
The political positioning reflects the reality that the crisis shows every
sign of worsening. Although Davis' office is distributing a brochure entitled
"Meeting the Energy Challenge" to defend the governor's actions, it's
apparent that none of the steps the governor has taken is bearing much fruit.
The state is spending at least $50 million a day on emergency power
purchases, but what was supposed to be a short-term program has evolved into
a monthslong drain on the state's rapidly shrinking budget reserves. The
long-term supply contracts that were supposed to replace daily spot purchases
have bogged down, and without firm contracts and a revenue stream to pay for
them, Wall Street is reluctant to market the bonds the state wants to float.
Many authorities now believe Davis' decision to step into the power purchase
market in January was a strategic error because it gave power suppliers a
deep new pocket to tap just as the utilities themselves ran out of credit.
Davis, meanwhile, is refusing to embrace a rate increase approved by the
state Public Utilities Commission, which sends a mixed message to Wall
Street, and efforts to resolve problems with unpaid bills from power
generators and have the state acquire the utilities' intercity transmission
grid have stalled, perhaps permanently.
The crisis may careen totally out of control as summer arrives, raising the
specter of elderly and/or ill Californians dying from having their air
conditioners or medical equipment shut down. And the utilities are closer to
bankruptcy now than at any other point in the nearly yearlong crisis.
Plan A isn't working, and there is no Plan B - except for bankruptcy. With
Armageddon looming, politicians have retreated into the bunker, hoping to
protect themselves from what could be a firestorm of anger.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected]
.
=====================================
|
4,195 |
Subject: Info on Permitting for Generators
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2930.
=====================================
Energy Committee Members:
Below is some info about Permitting for Generators.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why the permits for portable generators?
Well, the California Fire Code (CFC) has definitions on what does and does
not have to be permitted. In particular, Section 105f.3.3, specifically
states "...any tanks which are used to store, handle or dispense Class II or
IIIA Combustible Liquids....over 60 gallons...outside a building..." are
subject to permitting. It is no coincidence that day-tanks on most
generators are 60 gallons or less. However, there is a difference between a
day-tank and a belly-tank. Day tanks are for the occasional cranking. Belly
tanks are for operation. Does the belly tank on this diesel generator
exceed 60 gallons? If yes, read on.
Now that we know we're subject to permitting, we have to follow CFC Article
79, which handles flammable and combustible liquids, and specifically has
sections on tanks. You must comply with all pertinent sections of Article
79 (and potentially a few Appendicies), in order to bring these things on
your property. True, it's a generator, and it may be portable, and even
temporary, but if it exceeds 60 gallons in storage capacity, it requires a
permit. The Code is very black-and-white on that one.
The Cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose etc., who all have genarators
for their emergency operations centers, ALL have permits for their tanks,
and ALL of them have to go through the same exact permitting procedures that
we have to (submit plans, pay fees, etc.). No special treatment.
The arguement is raised about what if you have a crane, or large truck on
your property, with fuel tanks over 60 gallons? Well, those are considered
vehicles, and you aren't connecting them to the building's power supply. A
portable generator, you tow in, drop and plug into the building. The City
will want to verify that it has secondary containment, seismic bracing,
proper restraint so it doesn't go rolling around your property, emergency
shutoffs, etc.
Additionally, you need to check with your utility provider to ensure that
they are aware that your buildings are under generator power when you turn
them on, and they don't think a grid section is down. Or, worse yet....that
you are back-feeding the grid. Trust me, they will want to know.
Now, the CFC issues have nothing to do with Air Quality restrictions, and
therefore, the "Statewide Portable Generators" certification. Those are
differing issues. If I remember correctly, BAAQMD relaxed the time limits
on generator operation for a brief while, to allow for local generation
during crises. All that is allowing us to do is operate our generators
without the significant pollution restrictions.
I disagree with the belief that these units should be exempt from Fire Code
Review. Personally, I would like to know that the installation, placement,
fuelling, and restraint of 1000 gallons of diesel fuel on wheels on my
property, has met some sort of outside scrutiny. Also, I know that this is
not winter or the rainy season; however, we ARE also in a flood plain here
in certain areas of Santa Clara County, and certainly people have seen the
news stories of propane and diesel tanks floating down a river.
This is why the City of San Jose (and most others) has attempted to mandate
underground tanks, in addition to a myraid of other concerns. This is also a
CFC Article 79 requirement. There are exceptions for underground tank
installations, that we here at Intel take to keep all of our tanks
above-ground.
If you know of any other member agencies who are harboring generators with
tanks in excess of 60 gallons, I suggest that you have them notify their
local Fire Department, and hat-in-hand request guidance. They are usually
very good about working with you in an emergency, if you ask them what to do
rather than tell them what you're doing.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Todd
Todd LaBerge, P.E.
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
Intel Corporation
408-765-4558 (tele)
408-718-3356 (cell)
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,196 |
Subject: ISO's response to PX's request to remove hard cap on adjustment
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4708.
=====================================
The ISO filed a response at FERC to the PX's request to remove the hard cap=
=20
on adjustment bids and=20
replace it with a floating cap that would track the price of energy in the=
=20
market. =20
The ISO opposes the proposal arguing that it may produce extremely high=20
constrained Zonal market clearing=20
prices in the forward markets and may be subject to the exercise of market=
=20
power and to gaming. =20
The ISO suggests the PX fix this by anchoring its Adjustment Bids=20
(incremental and decremental bids) prices=20
to the unconstrained market clearing price, as opposed to absolute Energy=
=20
bids. In other words, the PX would=20
establish its constrained market clearing price as the sum of the=20
unconstrained market clearing price and the=20
Usage Charge resulting from the ISO=01,s Congestion Management process. =20
To effectuate this change, the PX would have to impose a new rule that=20
Adjustment Bids be within $125 of the=20
unconstrained market clearing price. The PX would then be required to proce=
ss=20
the Adjustment Bids prior to=20
passing them on to the ISO. The PX would have to subtract the unconstrained=
=20
market clearing price from each=20
Adjustment Bid prior to submitting it to the ISO. The ISO would then utiliz=
e=20
these Adjustment Bids, as well as=20
those submitted by other Scheduling Coordinators, to run its Congestion=20
Management system. After the ISO=20
completes its Congestion Management process, the ISO would then=20
"post-process" the Adjustment Bids=20
(add back the unconstrained market clearing price) for use by the PX in=20
establishing its constrained Zonal=20
Energy prices and, as needed, by the ISO in real-time Congestion Management=
.=20
The ISO says it does not intend, by presenting this alternative to the PX=
=01,s=20
proposal, to preclude consideration=20
of other solutions that may be presented by one or more of the utilities or=
=20
by the EOB. =20
The ISO also argued that the Commission should impose reporting requirement=
s=20
on those entities who submit=20
Adjustment Bids in the ISO=01,s Congestion Management process. It recommen=
ds=20
that the Commission require=20
the submission of all Adjustment Bids to the Commission, the ISO and the=20
EOB. It also asked the Commission=20
to direct the PX Market Monitoring Unit, in concert with the ISO=01,s Depar=
tment=20
of Market Analysis, to increase its=20
monitoring of Adjustment Bids and bids submitted in the PX forward Energy=
=20
markets for evidence of the=20
exercise of market power.
The ISO argues that the effect of the FERC's December 8 Order on supply=20
sufficiency in the ISO=01,s real time=20
Imbalance Energy market was immediate and beneficial. It states the=20
following in support. Although supply=20
in California is still very tight, after implementation of Amendment No. 33=
,=20
there were bids available in the ISO=01,s=20
"BEEP Stack" to address California=01,s real time balancing needs for the f=
irst=20
time in nearly a week. Immediately=20
after the order was issued 3000 to 5000 MW of Generation internal to=20
California and up to an additional 1990 MW=20
of imports became available to the ISO. The following day there was only o=
ne=20
hour in which reserves dropped=20
below 6% and one hour in which reserves were as great as 10%. In addition, =
it=20
alleges that the implementation=20
of Amendment No. 33 has substantially relieved the burden which had=20
previously been placed on the ISO=01,s=20
operators by in-state Generators attempting to negotiate prices in real tim=
e=20
in response to ISO Dispatch instructions.
The ISO also requests that the Commission clarify its December 8 Order to=
=20
confirm that sellers submitting bids=20
above $250 in the ISO=01,s Imbalance Energy Market are required to report t=
heir=20
bids and provide cost information=20
on a weekly basis not only to the Commission, but also to the California=20
Electricity Oversight Board and the ISO. =20
The ISO requests clarification that the Commission intended to approve the=
=20
proposed December 12,=20
2000 effective date for the cost allocation elements of Amendment No. 33.
=====================================
|
4,197 |
Subject: Re: Final Version-Manifesto
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8697.
=====================================
Dear Jeff:
Sorry I didn't get back to you last week. I was sick on Thursday and
Friday and only dealt with a couple of things. Unfortunately, not much to
report. Letter sent to Governor's office. Not even a courtesy call in
return. I spoke with Lynn Schenk on Thursday. She told me point blank
that the Governor and his staff had already solved the energy crisis and
that it was too late to convene a meeting such as LDT was
suggesting. Please DO NOT pass on this informationto anyone else in the
"Berkeley group." We'll probably try to reach Schenk again
today. Marybeth
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 [email protected] wrote:
>
> Mary Beth:
>
> For what it's worth, I've read this, and if Laura Tyson or Larry Summers
> sign it, I have serious concerns about the effect it would have on their
> ability to play the role that we envision in moving our proposal forward
> (understanding that our odds of success are somewhat meager). While I
> don't disagree with the language, it is strong and therefore very likely to
> make the Governor and his staff very uncomfortable. I would recommend that
> they do not sign.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
> ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/24/2001 11:32 AM -----
>
> David Teece
> <[email protected] To: [email protected],
> keley.EDU> [email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected],
> 01/24/2001 [email protected],
> 10:56 AM [email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected],
> [email protected],
[email protected]
> cc:
[email protected]
> Subject: Final
Version-Manifesto
>
>
>
>
>
> TO:?? Colleagues
>
> SUBJECT:? Final Version
>
> I've done my best to include your very helpful comments.? The document now
> also contains a summary.
>
> I would like your endorsement, by noon PST (Wednesday) if possible.? A
> number of you have already indicated you would sign it.? Also, Tom Campbell
> has indicated he will try to recruit Ken Arrow.? I believe one of you
> agreed to recruit Dan McFadden.? Laura is working on Larry Summers.? Solow
> would be a great addition, too.
>
> Can we agree on the following division of labor from here out:
>
> 1.? Recruiting others:? All
>
> 2.? Media representatives:? Campbell, Tyson, Spiller, Verlerger, Wilk,
> Teece, and Hogan (This is by no means meant to preclude anyone contacting
> the media after we go public.)
>
> ??? On media, we are giving the LA Times a 24-hour exclusive.? We won't
> release to other media sources until 9:00 AM Thursday.
>
> Many thanks for your involvement and endorsements.
>
>
>
>
> (See attached file: Manifesto-final version.doc)
> ======================================
> David J. Teece, Director
> Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization
> F402 Haas School of Business #1930
> University of California, Berkeley
> Berkeley, CA 94720-1930
> Phone: (510) 642-1075
> Fax: (510) 642-2826
> http://haas.berkeley.edu/~imio
> ======================================
>
=====================================
|
4,198 |
Subject: RE: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/402.
=====================================
Call me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit
Why does Edison care about DWR stranded costs? Are these the costs of the bonds or the above market long-term contracts?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:07 PM
To: Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit
In terms of our proposal, went over it with Wanda and Michael last week, and they, I believe, ran it by Swain. The real issue is what (if anything) we do about Edison's desire to lock down undercollection and DWR stranded costs as part of the deal (which they likely view as a pretty good hedge, since it's looking less than 50-50 that the Legislature isn't going to pull it off).
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:03 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit
We need to discuss the economics of this on our book (assuming that these costs hit our pocket and not our customers).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:56 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit
Talked to John Fielder (SVP at the utility) this morning in an attempt to determine if Edison will come around and pay us the PX credit they owe us.
Summary of our offer:
Edison pays us 90% of what they owe us as of 01.17.01.
Payment structure: Edison pays us 10% immediately, with an agreed to (speedy) payment schedule for the remaining 90%.
In return, we drop our complaint against Edison at the PUC.
In return, we agree to a bottoms-up approach retroactive to March 1 to replace the current PX Credit/Residual CTC framework.
Fielder said that he didn't see any show-stoppers in our proposal, but had to check back on his end. However, there were three additional issues that he wanted to add to any deal:
Some agreement regarding payment of Edison's undercollection (this would cover any of our DA customers who were bundled services customers pre-January 17). We agreed that this would only be an issue to the extent that the Legislature and/or the PUC agreed that Edison should get authority to recoup its undercollection in rates.
Some agreement on DWR stranded costs. John expressed the view that DWR bought power under the assumption that the customers who've recently gone DA would be there to take the power, and now that they've left, they should contribute in some way to any stranded costs. I told John that this issue is a hornet's nest, that we were better off leaving it out, but we'd consider his proposals.
Some agreement on forebearance. I told John that if Edison agrees to pay us, it didn't seem that forebearance would be off the table.
We agreed to touch base at the same time Wednesday morning. The idea is that he'll get back to me with Edison's reaction to our proposal; and we'd get back to him on Edison's proposals.
Might be useful to determine whether we want to continue the discussions. While John seemed very inclined to work something out, all signals are that the Legislature isn't inclinded to bail Edison out next week. In which case, Edison could be in bankruptcy in a couple of weeks, which would presumably nullify any agreement we might reach with them. On the other hand, if the Legislature pulls a rabbit out of a hat, an agreement might have real value.
Any comments folks have on 1) Edison's proposals and 2) whether it makes sense to continue discussions on Wednesday are appreciated. Seems that, at a minimum, if we agree to consider Edison's proposals, then our payment should go from 90 cents to 100 cents on the dollar.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,199 |
Subject: Fwd: EPSA Press Release re Comments on New CA ISO Board and MSP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4095.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:04:34 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: EPSA Press Release re Comments on New CA ISO Board and MSP
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Thursday April 19, 4:26 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
Electric Power Supply Association Tells FERC That New California ISO Board
and Its Flawed Market Plan Must Go
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2001--The Electric Power Supply
Association (EPSA) told federal regulators today that a lack of political and
market independence in the governance of the California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) is the first of several fatal flaws in the grid operator's
proposed market stabilization plan.
``EPSA believes that the time has come for the commission to enforce its Dec.
15 order mandating a truly independent CAISO,'' the association said in a
filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). ``The first step
in such enforcement is to replace the incumbent CAISO board with an
independent board.''
According to the comments, the CAISO continues to be transformed from an
``independent operator'' of interstate transmission resources to a partisan
advocate for the state, now the dominant marketplace buyer through its
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
``Because of the conflicts inherent in the politicization of the CAISO, there
exists a more urgent need for the commission to remedy the situation than was
the case in November 2000,'' said EPSA, citing the lack of an independent ISO
board as the source of a series of other fatal flaws in the market plan.
``Rather than presenting a well thought out, comprehensive
market-stabilization plan, developed with meaningful stakeholder input, the
CAISO has proposed a half-baked radical restructuring of the California
market, recycling calls for counterproductive price controls and suggesting
the implementation of bits and pieces of eastern ISO markets.''
Because of the regional nature of the wholesale power markets in the West,
the association also said it is vitally important that FERC ensure that all
market participants are treated fairly and comparably.
``The consequences of the political power being exercised over the CAISO are
palpable. The CAISO has taken positions before the commission, unrelated to
the reliability of the transmission system, which were unashamedly intended
to favor the interests of the State of California and DWR over other market
participants in negotiations for the sale of energy.''
``While it may be politically expedient to blame high prices on 'market
power,' market stabilization and repair must focus on the critical issues of
poorly designed markets, inadequate generation resources and deficient
infrastructure,'' according to EPSA's filing. ``A continued witch hunt for
evidence of market power, together with continuing credit problems, now pose
the greatest obstacle to the promise and potential of robust competitive
markets and the enhanced reliability they will provide.''
``Equally important, establishment of an independent CAISO is vital to the
long-term resolution of California's energy problems and the stability of the
entire western region,'' EPSA said.
EPSA is the national trade association representing competitive power
suppliers, including independent power producers, merchant generators and
power marketers. EPSA members provide reliable, competitively priced
electricity from environmentally responsible facilities in U.S. and global
power markets. EPSA seeks to bring the benefits of competition to all power
customers.
N
ote to Editors: A complete copy of EPSA's filing will soon be available on
the EPSA Web site at www.epsa.org, or by contacting Simone Byrd at
202/628-8200, [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Contact:
Electric Power Supply Association, Washington
Mark Stultz, 202/628-8200
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.