dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
4,200 |
Subject: Fwd: Reuters - Calif. bill would penalize energy price gougers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]', 'Andrea Settanni', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11537.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:19:24 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]>, "Andrea Settanni"
<[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman" <[email protected]>, "Dan
Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Kimberly Curry" <[email protected]>,
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>, "Randall Rich"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Reuters - Calif. bill would penalize energy price gougers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
FYI
Calif. bill would penalize energy price gougers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SAN FRANCISCO, April 23 (Reuters) - California legislators could be handed a
bill this week that, if approved, would make it a criminal offense for anyone
caught price gouging in the state's volatile energy market, a legislative
source told Reuters.
"We are right now waiting on final language for a bill that would propose
putting penalties on energy companies which have engaged in price gouging,"
the source said.
He said the bill, likely to be introduced in the Assembly Wednesday, would
seek stiff financial penalties for violators.
It was not yet clear how long it would take for the bill to make its way to
the Assembly floor for debate.
The bill follows a call earlier this month by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante for
laws making it a felony for energy companies "to charge unreasonable and
unjust energy rates".
A spokesman for Bustamante confirmed the proposed legislation would address
California's soaring natural gas prices, more than quadruple what they were a
year ago and now the highest in the nation, but was unsure when the bill
would go to the Assembly.
High natural gas prices have played a key role in pushing up power prices
because gas-fired turbines are the single biggest source of electricity in
California, providing more than a third of the power used by the state's 34
million residents.
California's power crisis stems from a 1996 deregulation plan that allowed
wholesale prices to soar but capped retail rates. The result has been a
string of rolling blackouts in January and March, rising rates, a spotty
power supply and the bankruptcy of the state's biggest utility.
But a number of state officials believe price gouging and illegal activity
have been behind the sharp rise in power and gas prices in California.
The California Independent System Operator, which operates most of the state
power grid, filed two reports with federal regulators in late March alleging
more than $6 billion in overcharges by wholesale power suppliers over a
10-month period.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate
electricity and gas sales and transmission, has also accused 13 western power
generators of overcharging California utilities $124 million for wholesale
power in January and February.
FERC ordered $69 million in refunds on power bought in January and $55
million for purchases in February.
Energy companies like Duke Energy , EL Paso Energy Corp. and Dynegy have
repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in California's chaotic wholesale power
market, arguing the prices they charge reflect the underlying cost of power
generation, tight supplies throughout the region, and the high financial risk
of doing business in the state.
Last week, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked San Francisco
Superior Court to force power generators Reliant Energy Inc. and Mirant Corp.
to turn over documents subpoenaed in his probe of possible price gouging in
the state after the two firms failed to produce the documents.
Lockyer, who initiated this investigation last August, is also conducting a
similar investigation into whether anti-competitive practices are behind the
rise in gas prices.
It is unknown when that investigation will be completed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Copyright , 2001 Reuters Limited.
=====================================
|
4,201 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4376.
=====================================
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 7, 2000
_________________________________________________________
Calif. Asked To Delay Holiday Lights
By COLLEEN VALLES
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation -
Gov. Gray Davis was in the holiday spirit
when he lit the Christmas tree at the state Capitol, but he quickly
pulled the plug as part of a statewide effort to conserve energy.
The 56-foot white fir was lit in Sacramento for about five
minutes Tuesday, then turned off for 2{ hours until 7:30 p.m.,
after the peak of the day's electrical use.
``In some parts of California, people are going without power,''
Davis said. ``I would love to keep the lights on. But it's
important that we all pull together to reduce the strain on the
grid.''
Officials have called on residents to delay the start of outdoor
holiday lighting, keep thermostats set at 68 degrees and turn off
computers and lights when not in use.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers face an average bill of
$77 this December compared with an average of $50 a year ago.
Part of the problem is a decreasing supply of natural gas
nationwide, said Claudia Chandler, assistant executive director of
the California Energy Commission.
Low natural gas prices over the past few years led to a decline
in drilling and production. That is now picking up, but the
products of those efforts will not hit the market for up to two
years.
The high price of electricity and petroleum also are driving up
the cost because much of the natural gas supply goes to electricity
generation.
Electricity shortages are plaguing the state, with Stage Two
emergencies declared Monday and Tuesday by the California
Independent System Operator _ leading to the request for
Californians to keep holiday lights off and to lower home
thermostats.
A Stage Two emergency means the state is within 5 percent of
running out of power. During Stage Two emergencies, suppliers are
allowed to cut power to commercial customers with interruptible
contracts.
The next step, when reserves fall below 1.5 percent, is a Stage
Three, which triggers rotating blackouts.
Monday's peak demand of more than 34,000 megawatts was close to
the wintertime record, and supplies could get even tighter with
colder weather forecast later in the week.
There have been six separate Stage Two emergencies declared in
the past three weeks. The problem has been exacerbated because some
power plants are out of commission while owners perform needed
maintenance.
Los Angeles is not hooked to the California Independent System
Operator, the state agency that runs the electricity system for
about 75 percent of the state, and has sufficient power for all
uses, including holiday lighting.
___=3D???On the Net:???California Independent System Operator: http://www.c=
aiso.com???California Energy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov???Pacific=
Gas and Electric: http://www.pge.com??????________________________________=
_________________________??Individual.com is the #1 provider of free, indiv=
idualized news?and information to business people over the Internet. Visit=
us at?http://www.individual.com to browse the largest free collection of b=
usiness,?financial, industry, trade, and company-specific news and informat=
ion?on the web.??This news story was sent by Karen Denne through Individual=
.com.?You will not receive email messages directly from Individual.com?unle=
ss you register at http://www.individual.com.??Get more headlines and stori=
es like this delivered FREE to your?desktop every business morning! Registe=
r at ?http://www.individual.com/welcome.shtml.??Individual.com also brings =
you FREE news on your investments!?Sign up at http://www.individual.com/wel=
come.shtml.?___________________________________________________________??En=
tire contents Copyright , 1999-2000, Individual.com=01v, Inc.,?8 New Englan=
d Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803, USA
=====================================
|
4,202 |
Subject: Re: Contracts
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12513.
=====================================
To add to Scott's comments:
The average price of the contracts over 10 years are $69/Mwh, about
one-fourth of the average price the state had been paying. Some of those
$69 contracts are locked in at that price and not subject to gas escalation.
The contract rates are also not adjusted for inflation, so the relative
price may drop over the contract term.
DWR predicts that the contracts will meet 70% of the state's overall needs
for the next 10 years.
About 25% of the state's purchases this month are on the spot market, down
from 100% earlier this year.
The state feels it has purchased all the "around the clock" power it needs,
but still has a need for more "dispatchable" power. The strategy is to
leave some room to take advantage of a better market if it develops.
A question was asked about Reliant, presumably its 2 cent "bring your own
gas" offer (the questions were inaudible). Freeman said Reliant failed to
respond rapidly enough to make good on its offer.
The current spot price is $121, which they admitted could go higher
depending on weather, etc. The state is at less exposure, however,
according to Freeman, because only a quarter of the state's purchases will
now be on the spot market.
When asked about the length of the deals, Freeman said the state's only
leverage was to offer to buy power now into what he called an upcoming
"period of uncertainty." Otherwise, there was no reason for producers to
offer lower prices.
The contracts contain clauses that allow DWR to bring in its own gas if gas
prices are too high. Freeman indicated that the state has a source
available but did not elaborate.
Freeman expects the public power authority to take an active role "unlocking
the Path 15 bottleneck" and that it will be completed within the lifetime of
the majority of contracts.
Freeman said the state is "not out of the woods" and that "no one is
declaring victory or saying the crisis is over. " He said prices could once
again go through the roof occur unless FERC implements a ceiling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>
To: "Hedy Govenar" <[email protected]>; "Mike Day" <[email protected]>; "Bev
Hansen" <[email protected]>; "Jeff Dasovich" <[email protected]>; "Susan J
Mara" <[email protected]>; "Paul Kaufman" <[email protected]>; "Michael
McDonald" <[email protected]>; "Sandra McCubbin"
<[email protected]>; "Rick Shapiro" <[email protected]>; "Jim
Steffes" <[email protected]>; "Alan Comnes" <[email protected]>;
"Steven Kean" <[email protected]>; "Karen Denne" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; "Leslie Lawner" <[email protected]>;
"Robert Frank" <[email protected]>; "Ken Smith" <[email protected]>;
"Janel Guerrero" <[email protected]>; "Miyung Buster"
<[email protected]>; "Jennifer Thome" <[email protected]>;
"Eric Letke" <[email protected]>; "Mary Schoen" <[email protected]>;
"David Leboe" <[email protected]>; "Ban Sharma" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Contracts
> DWR released 38 power purchase contracts today. I have already
> purchased one copy which I am sending to Jeff Dasovich. I am trying to
> purchase additional copies, however they are in short supply. The
> document is approximately 1,000 pages long and I will not be able to
> make photocopies in time to catch FedEx. If I do obtain additional
> copies today I will forward one to Houston and one to San Francisco. I
> should be able to get additional copies early next week.
>
> David Freeman made the following comments during his press conference:
>
> Half of the contracts are specifically tied to gas prices;
> David Freeman believes the PPA could supply cheap gas if gas prices get
> too high;
> In 2004, DWR purchased 100% of the projected net short;
> The contracts are not subject to renegotiation or inflation;
> DWR expects few if any of the companies to exercise their July 2
> cancellation option;
> DWR believes the contracts are just and reasonable, and many state that;
>
> The bulk of the power contracts are for Southern California;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
4,203 |
Subject: NEWS: ...California Comes Close to Running Out of Electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4323.
=====================================
New York Times...
Power supply levels in CA this week....
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 12/06/2000
08:36 AM ---------------------------
Elizabeth Peters 12/06/2000 08:09 AM
To: Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Crain and deregulation: Once More, California Comes Close to Running
Out of Electricity
California team
Beth
---------------------- Forwarded by Elizabeth Peters/HOU/EES on 12/06/2000
08:09 AM ---------------------------
[email protected] on 12/06/2000 04:56:50 AM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Crain and deregulation: Once More, California Comes Close to Running
Out of Electricity
National Desk; Section A
Once More, California Comes Close to Running Out of Electricity
By LAURA M. HOLSON
12/06/2000
The New York Times
Page 20, Column 3
c. 2000 New York Times Company
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5 -- For the second time in as many days, power
companies today were forced to shut down electricity to customers
statewide as California came the closest it has this season to running
out of power, state officials said.
As late as tonight, energy officials were concerned that they would
be forced to announce a last-resort emergency as power reserves crept
close to a dangerous level of 1.5 percent, and utility companies would
have been required to institute rolling hourlong blackouts in various
parts of the state. Such last-resort steps have never been taken in
California before.
On Monday, Californians were urged to postpone turning on Christmas
lights until later in the evening as use hit near record levels for this
time of year.
Then, as today, state officials declared an intermediate-level
emergency, which meant power reserves dipped to 5 percent and utilities
began cutting service to large customers who had agreed to the cuts in
exchange for lower rates. In a Stage 3 emergency, the worst situation,
any customer's service can be shut off.
''We are riding the edge right now,'' said Patrick Dorinson, a
spokesman for the California Independent System Operator, which manages
the electricity system for 75 percent of the state and charged with
ensuring that there is enough power for users. ''This will only get
tougher.''
Mr. Dorinson said the shortfall was the result of several factors,
including the fact that a number of power plants were not running
because of maintenance or would have violated air quality standards if
they had. Additionally, power imports from the Northwest were cut in
half because of a cold snap there, he said.
Californians have been plagued since last May by both an electricity
supply shortage as well as high prices, the result of deregulation.
Consumers in San Diego revolted last summer when electricity bills
nearly tripled and when officials said the state had severe energy
shortfalls 23 times. But emergencies like the one this week are almost
unheard of in late fall when usage is usually low compared with summer.
''If you have rolling blackouts, that shows that the system is
failing,'' said Paul Jaskow, a professor of economics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied the deregulation
of California's electricity market. Before deregulation, he added, ''the
system was designed so that this happened rarely. If it happens
repeatedly businesses and customers will get angry.''
Steve Maviglio, the press secretary for Gov. Gray Davis, said: ''It
is the perfect storm of the energy situation in California. This is Day
1 of what is to be a two-week problem.''
Folder Name: Crain and deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 92
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit http://www.djinteractive.com 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
=====================================
|
4,204 |
Subject: Re: Nov. 13 UC summit conference on electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/526.
=====================================
Lee: I'm not certain that it will be possible to get Skilling, but I'll get
back to you soon. Also, I want to manage expectations a bit about the
possibility of having Enron stream the conference. Just don't want us to get
ahead of ourselves. I'd prefer that it not go out in any announcement at
this juncture. Thanks a bunch.
Best,
Jeff
"Lee S. Friedman" <[email protected]>
10/04/2000 05:52 PM
To: "Tim Belden" <[email protected]>, "Jeff Dasovich" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Nov. 13 UC summit conference on electricity
Jeff and Tim,
Tim, I know Jeff knows all about the conference we are organizing and I hope
you do as well.
Rob, I and the rest of the conference organizers are wondering if you could
help us find out if Jeff Skilling from Enron would be willing to be one of
our panelists? He has been an articulate critic of the current state of our
electricity markets, and we definitely would like the genco perspective
represented.
Naturally we are hoping to get a quick answer because our publicity about
the conference will be going out shortly.
A brief description of the conference is appended below. Please let me know
if you need any additional information.
Thanks very much for your help and advice.
Lee
The summer of San Diego has prompted the School, in collaboration with UC's
Energy Institute and Competition Policy Center, to sponsor a high-level
summit conference on electricity deregulation. The focus, and the audience,
will be national, but heavily informed and influenced by the California
crisis. The conference will evaluate (1) the wisdom of deregulation and (2)
how the pitfalls encountered so far can be avoided and remedied. The
University will facilitate an open, honest and reasoned exchange between
executive-level players from various perspectives: industry, regulators,
consumers, legislators, academics, and market and system operators.
The format entails two roundtable discussions with six speakers and a
moderator. During the panel sessions, the speakers will engage in a
debate/dialogue on the current situation in electricity deregulation, where
we have come from, what the future holds, and what solutions lie on the
horizon. Each speaker will have uninterrupted time to speak, followed by Q&A
and discussion. We expect a live audience of about 200, including a large
press presence. One sponsor has tentatively offered to provide internet
streaming video services. We hope to have a balanced group of sponsors
ranging from the American Public Power Association to energy companies.
The speakers are being arranged at this time. We have commitments from:
Loretta Lynch (Chair, CPUC), and PJM CEO Phil Harris. We have a preliminary
acceptance from Steven Littlechild (England's former primary electricity
regulator) and Laura Tyson (former Chair, President's Council of Economic
Advisors and National Economic Council, currently Dean, Haas School of
Business). We have invited FERC Commissioner Curt Hebert, and U.S.
Representative Edward
Markey, executive-level managers from several energy companies and state
legislators. Former DOJ chief economist Carl Shapiro will be on one of the
panels, as will economist Severin Borenstein, Director of UCEI and Professor
of Business and Public Policy. Michael Florio from The Utility Reform
Network (TURN) will be a consumer advocate on one of the panels. Lee
Friedman, economist and Professor of Public Policy, will briefly provide an
introduction to the panel discussions with his talk "Lighting the Stage: The
Electricity of Deregulation."
A dinner for the panelists and organizers will be hosted at UC's Goldman
School of Public Policy following the conference proceedings. We have
reserved rooms for our speakers at Berkeley's landmark Claremont Hotel. We
can reimburse those speakers who request it for coach airfare expenses and
other ordinary local expenses.
Forfurther information, please contact:
Lee S. Friedman
Professor of Public Policy
Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California
2607 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94720-7320
Ph: (510) 642-7513
Fax: (510) 643-9657
email: [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,205 |
Subject: RE: 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/notes_inbox/61.
=====================================
Please see the additional questions below. Any help is appreciated. If you
need more detail please let me know.
---------------------- Forwarded by Becky L Merola/DUB/EES on 08/24/2000
03:06 PM ---------------------------
"Taft, Sheldon A." <[email protected]> on 08/24/2000 10:33:03 AM
To: "'Becky L Merola'" <[email protected]>
cc: "Petricoff, M. Howard" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC
In addition, Becky, do your people have views on a realistic flowchart for
interconnection applications? The utilities are struggling to come up with
a flowchart that would identify the review steps, time requirements, fees,
etc. for different kinds of interconnection applications, including net
metering. The PUCO staff has asked the non-utility participants to come up
with their own flowchart before our next workshop meeting on August 30. Can
your people do that? Is there any more information that I can provide?
-----Original Message-----
From: Becky L Merola [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 11:08 AM
To: Tom Hoatson; Robin Kittel; Joe Hartsoe; Sarah Novosel; Jeff
Dasovich; Jeff Brown
Cc: Taft, Sheldon A.; Janine Migden; Richard Shapiro
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.
________________________________________________________________________
(See attached file: Tech. Req. for Single & 3 Phase, 8-15-00.DOC)
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.
________________________________________________________________________
=====================================
|
4,206 |
Subject: California Consumer Groups Seek Rate Protection Electricity:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/730.
=====================================
Business; Financial Desk
California Consumer Groups Seek Rate Protection Electricity: Activists push
legislators to promise that customers won't be forced to cover rising
wholesale costs.
NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
?
09/27/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page C-2
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company
Consumer activists on Tuesday blasted increasingly aggressive strategies by
Southern California Edison and the state's other big utilities to recover
their mounting wholesale electricity costs and called for lawmakers to
promise that ratepayers won't bear the brunt of such costs.
Three consumer groups unveiled a "ratepayer protection pledge" at news
conferences in Santa Monica, San Diego and San Francisco that will be sent to
all California lawmakers and candidates for the Legislature.
"The politicians and utilities got us into this mess by promising lower rates
with a plan that has failed miserably," said Harvey Rosenfield, president of
the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
"Californians do not want any more lip service about consumer protection and
lower rates. This time we want it in writing."
Edison International unit SCE, meanwhile, said it wants to develop measures
to help customers manage the higher costs that have zapped the California
electricity world this summer.
Currently, residential and small-business customers of SCE and PG&E Corp.'s
Pacific Gas & Electric utility are paying rates that were frozen by the 1996
law that deregulated the state's electricity industry. Those rates will
remain frozen until March 31, 2002, or until the utilities pay off their
"stranded assets"--investments such as nuclear plants that became
uneconomical under deregulation.
Customers of San Diego Gas & Electric, a Sempra Energy subsidiary that paid
off its stranded assets more than a year ago, had their rates capped by the
state Legislature in August after record wholesale electricity prices caused
bills for the utility's 1.2 million customers to double and triple.
The utilities are running up a huge tab of wholesale electricity costs--$5
billion and growing--that they can't pass on to customers because of these
freezes. Who will pay these costs--consumers, utilities and their
shareholders, or a mixture of both--has not been determined.
SCE on Tuesday, in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said
it has amassed enough credits through the pending sale of generating assets
and the valuation of its hydroelectric properties to pay off its remaining
$1.3 billion in stranded assets and thus qualify to have its rate freeze
lifted. PG&E made a similar filing two weeks ago.
SCE also said that the utility and its shareholders should not be on the hook
for costs of delivering electricity to customers, currently totaling $2
billion and growing, and that it soon will file with the California Public
Utilities Commission for authority to recover these electricity
"undercollections" from customers when the rate freeze is lifted.
The Rosemead-based utility will file a plan in the next few months detailing
a "rate stabilization" plan for customers so that they won't be exposed to
wild market fluctuations in electricity prices, said Jim Scilacci, SCE's
chief financial officer. The utility would expect to establish new rates and
expand an existing level-pay plan to smooth out any electricity charges it
would be allowed to pass on to customers.
But three consumer groups--Rosenfield's Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, the Utility Reform Network and Consumers Union--criticized the
utilities for wanting to back out of a deal that has allowed them to collect
$14 billion so far in extra electricity and other transition costs since
deregulation began in 1998.
The groups said they will mail to all lawmakers and legislative candidates a
pledge to oppose any legislation or other efforts to require ratepayers to
pay the electricity costs that have built up during the rate freeze. The
groups intend to keep a list of each politician's position on the pledge on
the Internet at http://www.turn.org and http://www.consumerwatchdog.org.
=====================================
|
4,207 |
Subject: Re: Notes from FERC Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3505.
=====================================
Can't thank you enough. Great report and I wish that I'd been there with you
to experience it. I'd like to stay in touch. It's a high priority of mine
to come down there (as I've mentioned a few times). I'm going to try and do
it before the month's out. I hope we can have lunch or something and compare
notes about all this stuff. This won't be going away for quite some time.
Thanks again for your help.
Best,
Jeff
Dana Perino <[email protected]>
11/14/2000 02:49 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Notes from FERC Meeting
Hi, Jeff --
I'm so glad you called today and that I could run over to the FERC
meeting. Always interesting!
Here are my notes -- I apologize in advance if they are a little
rough. Over the past few years I've become a much faster typist than when
I write longhand.
Gov. Gray Davis
November 14, 2000
FERC Hearing in San Diego
Serious flaws in the energy market in California. Rates are not reasonable
nor just. Two points:
1. Given FERC's findings, you must order refunds. If you don't, then what
was the point of the findings. Believes FERC has the authority to issue
the refunds and called on them to order them sooner than later.
2. Impose hard price caps and big caps that will protest consumers from
another anticipated crisis in summer 2001.
Davis said he believes that deregulation can work eventually, if market is
competitive and all parties act responsibly. But he believes it will take
4-5 years to get to a competitive market. Without the price caps, he
believes there will be a lot of unwarranted pain inflicted on the consumers
and businesses of CA.
He said there is no justification for the huge profits the energy companies
netted in the third quarter. He said he won't stand to allow CA companies
to be brought to their knees. The market is dysfunctional. People in SD
believe the marketplace is being manipulated for obscene profits. Wants to
level off dereg for 4-5 years to allow market to work and for more power
plants to come online.
He said he believes in people making money and that dereg can work -- but
only when it's competitive.
Strong belief in wholesale price caps. Angry that FERC stripped CA ISO's
ability to protect consumers against price spikes. He said FERC's plan is
a reckless deregulation experiment and that the Commission's plan will only
make things worse next summer. Davis asked FERC to modify its order.
He said that FERC doesn't believe that CA can get the plants
online. Doesn't blame them given the history of CA, but that he has taken
measures to speed up from 1 year to 6 months to site new plants. He's
allocated $50 million from the general fund and $500 million for demand
reduction, renewables and conservation programs. He believes he can reduce
demand and increase supply without public health risks or environmental
degradation.
He said he wants to have someone accountable/electable to the ISO and the
Power Exchange Boards, that the state should have the right to include
people from CA on those Boards. He talked about the negative effects the
actions in CA will have on other states watching this "great deregulation
experiment."
He said FERC's proposed solution does nothing to lower prices. To the
contrary, it's to bring businesses and consumers to their knees. And Davis
predicted "a ratepayers revolt that will strip FERC of its authority and
take matters into their own hands." He said he believes strongly that FERC
has the remedies to protect consumers, give them rebates and prevent this
from happening again.
He said if FERC just focuses on getting more plants online, all hell is
going to break loose. That FERC can't sit in Washington, 3,000 miles away
and take action on CA -- that will only cause more problems.
Dana speaking again -- If any of this doesn't make sense or you have
additional questions, please let me know. I have a few things scribbled in
the margins that may help piece it together better.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to help. I look forward to talking to
you again soon.
Best,
Dana
Dana Perino
[email protected]
619-234-1300 ext. 238
=====================================
|
4,208 |
Subject: Re: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10683.
=====================================
Rick. Let's pause and reflect on this bullet. Do we want to argue for that?
This is going to start another Federal/State rights war!! and I do not
believe this is going to help much and would require legislation.
Federal siting and permitting authority must be expanded to allow for the
construction of new transmission and generation facilities.
Maybe in some less populated states, or for sitting facilities in the middle
of no-where this is not a problem, but my experience in Florida is that the
sitting process is very much intertwined with property rights and ROW
acquisition, ultimately relying on condemnation. To get there, in Florida
there is a process to establish that there was a "public need" that required
government action. At FPL we relied on the process to obtain an eventual
outcome where there was the force-of- law [of the greater public good to be
able to obtain the ROW]. This was crucial for the Transmission ROW for all
lines greater than 240 KV. (Many more individual owners and 100% needed to
complete the connection within the selected route). The sitting process for
the generation site was not as controversial, because we acquired (or held
rights to) sites which had been pre-screened to avoid controversy; but,
obviously a permit for a generation site is useless if you can't get the
power into the grid, thus you need the Transmission ROW.
Part of the process involved providing options/ and costs, community
involvement, etc. - which ultimately resulted in a "choice" determined to
have been "prudently" undertaken, ( Longer much costly line, part
underground, etc,)
In every case, there were "not in my back-yard" arguments, at times disguised
as an EMF issue. Also, in every case, the authorities knew that they had to
select one option, or make one on their own. Not selecting one meant that
there would be power shortages and they would have to answer to the people
impacted, the local voters.
Under the regulatory framework, where there will be concurrent filings for
competing projects, the determination of "public need" will be more difficult
to acertain. You may end up having an approval but not being able to use the
condemnation process to get the ROW. But, still, I have a hard time believing
that the Federal process would be an improvement over the State process
(except in California where they have truly lived-up to their reputation).
Jose
Richard Shapiro@ENRON
04/04/2001 12:07 PM
To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Jean Ryall/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jose
Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls
I think these are quite good...the missing piece, I would argue, that we need
to include is a talking point on the need for FERC to focus significant
resources on the identification and elimination of market power in
electricity markets and the need to encourage the development of distributed
generation and more effective demand - side response mechanisms , partly in
response to market power concerns. This is a huge issue in getting wholesale
electricity markets to work effectively, i.e; to create discernable consumer
welfare benefits.... and we ( Enron ) need to talk about this this issue and
concern and talk about it frequently and w/ the same passion we talk about
the need for open markets.
Linda Robertson
04/04/2001 12:09 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls
Steve, per our conversation yesterday in Houston, what do you think of these
TPs? To be used by both Ken and Jeff in conversations and meetings with the
Bush Administration.
- Skilling Talking Points.doc
=====================================
|
4,209 |
Subject: Power providers cry foul over fees -- Cal ISO/DWR price
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/495.
=====================================
Power providers cry foul over fees
State is accused of improper billing
Electricity suppliers long accused of manipulating California's energy market are turning the tables on the state, saying its independent grid manager is forcing them to make up the cost of bad energy deals signed by Gov. Gray Davis' administration.
The power traders accuse the Independent System Operator -- which is legally required to act as an impartial market manager -- of improperly helping state power buyers spread out the cost of high-priced electricity contracts.
Energy firms as well as municipal utility systems have complained about mysterious charges on their accounts with the grid agency, said Jan Smutney- Jones of the Independent Energy Producers Association, which represents such industry giants as Enron, Dynegy, Williams and Reliant.
The charges showed up around the time the state Department of Water Resources was forced to start selling excess electricity it had purchased at an average of $69 per megawatt hour for as little as $1 per megawatt hour.
"The ISO seems to be following specific instructions the Department of Water Resources is giving them," Smutney-Jones said.
An industry source said NRG Energy Inc. and other suppliers were preparing a formal complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which could order the state to issue refunds to generators if it finds they have been improperly charged.
The commission has ordered an unprecedented operational audit of the grid management agency.
State officials bought power under long-term contracts when it appeared California could suffer serious power shortages over the summer. Instead, the state had more than enough power, and electricity available on the spot market suddenly cost half as much as the energy California had bought.
Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum, an industry group, said the grid operator was using a combination of power scheduling and billing practices to "bury" some of the cost of power purchased by the state in the accounts of other generators.
"The state is the biggest buyer and seller of electricity, and they control the governing board of the ISO," Ackerman said.
The governor's spokesman, Steve Maviglio, called the power firms' accusations "absolutely false" and said the generators were trying to whip up sentiment in Washington to interfere with the state's affairs.
"The generators know they'll get a much better deal at FERC headquarters in Washington than they will in Sacramento," Maviglio said. "It shouldn't be a surprise that they make these accusations here to get federal involvement."
Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the Department of Water Resources, said generators could hardly cast themselves as victims in California's energy crisis.
"I don't feel sorry for them one bit," Hidalgo said. "They had one heck of a year."
Gregg Fishman, spokesman for the ISO said the agency was preparing a response to the accusations.
Energy trade organizations said they suspected the ISO of using several mechanisms to charge suppliers for state contract costs.
The extra expense is sometimes tacked on to suppliers' bills for ISO operating costs, which all electricity sellers in California share, Ackerman said.
Some firms say they have tried to buy cheap spot market electricity for resale, only to find later that the grid manager has charged them for more expensive state power. Others say the grid operator orders them to activate stand-by power units on too-short notice. When they can't comply, they say, the ISO brings high-priced state power on line and bills them for the extra cost.
The accusations are part of a struggle for control of California's grid. In January, Davis disbanded the ISO's 26-member governing board, which was chaired by Smutney-Jones, after some critics said it was too cozy with industry. Davis appointed his own five-member board.
In February, then-FERC Chairman Curt Hebert said the new board had become "a political arm of the governor." The commission is trying to get California to turn over its grid to a multistate transmission organization.
Davis has warned Washington to "keep its hands off" the ISO.
=====================================
|
4,210 |
Subject: 300+ Served and Counting - Career Center Sep 2001 Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1815.
=====================================
Welcome back EvMBAs. Hopefully you've all acclimated after a couple of weeks or more of classes. To the first years: Rumors of students voted off in Weakest Link style with Diane stepping in as Anne Robinson, are simply unfounded, or are they . . . ? I am a 2nd year student, as well as hopefully your ever so resourceful Career Center liaison. What this translates to is the following: I work with John Morel, Associate Director of the Career Center and the EvMBA and Alumni Career Advisor to serve your career-related needs. Of course, there is one caveat: I get first dibs on job postings.
Anyway, thanks to feedback from you last year, I've prepared a charter with which to drive my initiatives this academic year.
1. Resume directories. Although there are no plans in the near future to produce an exclusive EvMBA resume book, there are several student MBA clubs that are gearing up for their releases and welcome inclusions from EvMBA students. I'm unsure of all the fees and some do require that you are or become a member. E-mail me back if you would like a list of groups with contacts offering resume books.
2. Networking events (on-campus and off-site). I will be working with the account managers from the Recruitment Center as well as other members of the EVMBA Association in arranging company presentations, alumni speakers addressing particular career fields, in addition to co-sponsored events w/full time MBAs this upcoming year. Contact me if you have any ideas.
3. On-campus recruitment. Just a reminder that you are only eligible for on-campus recruitment the academic year in which you graduate. In other words, if you are planning to graduate in December 2002 or May 2003, you are eligible to participate starting Fall 2002. Of course, that's not to say that you cannot tap into the resources of the Career Center (including John's time) at anytime of your 3-year stay at Haas.
4. Career-related seminars. In the near future, John will offer forums pertaining to strategies on getting promoted or transferred, life/work/school balance, a panel of headhunters, during the break seminars on resume updates, interview coaching, salary negotiations and networking strategies.
Furthermore, you should have received in your mail box in the MBA Lounge last week a list of events from the Managing Your Career Workshop Series, which deals with career exploration in investment banking and consulting and interview preparation, just to name a few. These are mainly targeting the full-time students and you are encouraged to attend if you calendar permits.
NOTE: Unlike previous years, you will have to log on to Bear Tracks (http://web.haas.berkeley.edu/intranet/) to RSVP these seminars. If you were not available to attend BearTracks training this week (log in using your student ID and the password is the word password), directions can also be found in the Career Center. Speaking of which, I'll have a table in the Bank of America forum during our breaks on Sep. 11, 12 and 13, during which this handout will be available, as well as all sorts of other career info. Also, I'll be there to answer questions or discuss ideas you might have.
5. Other useful tidbits.
- Don't forget to report placement information if you have recently been promoted or changed jobs, either internally or externally. Again report this information on the EveMBA placement form in BearTracks.
- Subscribe to alumnijobs@haas on majordomo to receive weekly emails of job opportunities sent by companies or fellow alumni interesting in hiring not only alumni, but also experienced EvMBA students.
Here's how:
i. Send an email to [email protected].
ii. Leave subject line blank.
iii. In the message area, type "subscribe alumnijobs@haas"
iv. Send your message.
- I'll be scheduling a couple of brown bag sessions in the fall to solicit additional input on a few of these topics. The next brown bag will be either Tuesday, Oct. 9 or the following day on Oct. 10. As usual, grub and drinks as well as free access to John's minibar are offered as an enticement.
Have a great year and see you soon,
Albert Demery
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,211 |
Subject: Internet Daily for November 15, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1898.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Thursday, November 15, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Eshoppers break out their mice
Online holiday shoppers have begun cruising the Web in earnest,
but whether they're spending more than last year remains to be
seen. Nielsen/NetRatings says the volume of visitors to
shopping sites the past week has increased vs the same period a
year ago. "This year's online holiday shopping season kicked off
stronger than last year by increasing 14%, compared to 10% a
year ago," said Sean Kaldor, vice president for analytical
services.
Visits to Web sites in the toys and games category showed an
overall 65.7% rise in the week ending Nov. 11, compared to the
previous week. Toysrus.com and Lego.com were the largest
gainers. Home and garden sites had a 40.5% traffic rise and
18.9% more people visited computer hardware sites.
Total domestic sales online topped $1 billion last week,
according to another Web analysis firm, ComScore Networks. The
volume was the highest since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The
increase was driven by a rebound in travel services and other
non-travel categories, such as apparel, indicating early
momentum in the holiday shopping season, the company said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Web users resist paying fees
Web sites counting on generating subscription revenue face big
challenges finding customers. The Pew Internet & American Life
Project surveyed several thousand Web users and found that while
17% of them said they have been asked to pay for access to a Web
site for content, only 12% of them did so. Half said they found
a free alternative, according to Lee Rainie, the Project's
director. The research also found the Internet has had an impact
on millions of Americans' lives. Twelve percent say they or
family members have lost money investing in Internet companies,
and 14% know someone laid off by an Internet company or firm
that supplies services to Web companies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit card fraud top merchant worry
More than half the online merchants questioned in a recent
survey say online credit card fraud is their primary concern as
they go into the holiday season. Almost two-thirds of them are
taking more precautions this year than last, including more
manual checking of submitted information, according to
Cybersource, which provides transaction services for retailers.
Emerchants are optimistic: 54% expect their sales volume to grow
an average of 37% this year from last.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay uncorks wine sales
EBay is offering wine for sale. Chief Executive Meg Whitman
made the announcement during a speech at the Comdex Computer
show in Las Vegas. "We think it's a big market, we think it's a
fun market," she said, according to CNET. The company's Web site
includes wines, wine racks and even a complete winemaking
facility, with set up and training. She said eBay will list
items only from sellers licensed to distribute wine, and will
not make sales in states where such shipments are illegal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,212 |
Subject: PREHEARING CONFERENCE -- FOLLOW UP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['MBD <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]\'" <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/902.
=====================================
A PHC was held in San Diego yesterday on the investigation into markets.
Wood is the Assigned Commissioner in the Investigation. He's held one
quasi-legislative hearing with hand-picked panelist in San Diego. He intends
to hold 3 others. Panelist will be invited to participate. I understand
that the generators, who are not parties to the proceeding, have been
subpoened by the CPUC to provide their generating information, which was
supplied on Monday of this week.
This is shaping up in a very bad direction. In addition to the "hand-picked"
panels, only Wood, the ALJ and other Commissioners can ask questions. The
record could be developed to support the view point of roll-back to
regulation. This also could be used by the legislature next session.
I will be getting the ALJ's ruling on the questions the Commission would like
to have answered. We have not been contacted to participate in any panel, as
of yet.
We may need to turn up the heat (PR?) on the process issues in this
proceeding. It is shaping up to be a sham investigation.
I will forward pertinent portions of the transcript when available.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 08/30/2000
01:51 PM ---------------------------
JMB <[email protected]> on 08/30/2000 12:36:17 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, MBD <[email protected]>
Subject: PREHEARING CONFERENCE -- FOLLOW UP
For those of you who were not at the Prehearing conference yesterday in San
Diego, here are the highlights:
1. An assigned commissioner's ruling is to be issued in the near future (I
speculate today or tomorrow) setting forth a number of questions to which
parties will be asked to respond. We have no information as to what those
questions will consist of.
2. Additional quasi-legislative hearings (like the ones held last week)
have been scheduled for September 8, 14, 15 in San Diego. An agenda is
promised to be forthcoming. We made a pitch yesterday to have some
representatives from the "sell" side of the equation represented at these
hearings.
3. ALJ Wetzell stated his intent to have a scoping memo issued by next
week. There was talk about the issuance of a draft scoping memo, with
opportunity for parties to comment.
4. The ALJ and Commissioner Wood gave each party an opportunity to talk and
state what they believe should be within the Scope of the Proceeding. In
addition to my speaking on behalf of ARM, John spoke for Shell, Kathleen for
the New Power Group and Dan Douglass for Enron. In addition, the retail side
of the proceeding got some play from representatives of the Department of
General Services, New West Energy and UCAN.
Follow Up Action Items
After the prehearing conference, the ARM members which were present caucused
(over lunch of course) to talk about next steps.
1. We decided that it would be a good idea to be proactive in determining
a schedule for the proceeding and helping to ensure that our issues did not
get back burnered (as the UDCs would like). Therefore, we are going to
submit a proposed schedule to the ALJ. This schedule will propose a
dual-track proceeding, with the tracks running simultaneously. The issues
will be split somewhat along the wholesale/retail lines. I have attached a
draft of that schedule I am not sure how we want to formulate it. If we
"file" it, then it would have to be done in the form of a motion (giving
other parties a chance to respond). So we might want to take what I have
done and turn it into a letter to Wetzell and Wood. Please give me your
thoughts. Also, I have filled in dates which would have a final decision on
February 1, 2001. Seems like a far time out, but I am not sure where to cut
it (again your thoughts are welcomed). I would like to get this to Judge
Wetzell in what ever form we decide no later than Friday a.m.
2. Also, it was decided that it would be extremely helpful for ARMers to
have a face to face pow wow to plot our course for the OII. We are thinking
next Thursday afternoon (Sept. 7th) in San Diego before the
quasi-legislative hearing on Friday.
<<X16221.DOC>>
Jeanne
- X16221.DOC
=====================================
|
4,213 |
Subject: Re: Environmental Strategy Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/184.
=====================================
I thought it might be of interest to you given your involvement w/ CFEE.
Also, there are a lot of env. opportunities in CA to which you could speak.
The meeting is intended to focus on getting some deals going. So, if you'd
like to participate, we'd like to have you. I can hook you in by conference
call also, if you prefer.
Jeff Dasovich
08/29/2000 12:53 PM
To: Stacey Bolton/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: Environmental Strategy Meeting
If you would like me to attend and think that it would be useful, just let me
know. And thanks very much for the tip on the WSJ story.
Enron Energy Services
From: Stacey Bolton 08/24/2000 06:38 PM
Phone No: 713-853-9916
To: Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES, Heather Mitchell/HOU/EES@EES, George
Phillips/HOU/EES@EES, Bruce N Stram/HOU/EES@EES, Bill Votaw/HOU/EES@EES,
William Gang/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Harada/HOU/EES@EES, John Massey/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Janel Guerrero, Edward D Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Curry/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Zachary Sampson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Elliot Mainzer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Doug
Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kellie
Metcalf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Robert Anderson/PDX/ECT@ECT, Scott
Affelt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Woulfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Vince Middleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marcello
Minotti/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Idel Metzger/SA/Enron@Enron,
Ricardo Szlejf/SA/Enron@Enron, Al Pollard/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, Adam
Umanoff/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Bob Gates/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Michael Miller@enron, Dan
Badger/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeff Ghilardi/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Marc
Phillips/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Susan Worthen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Gavin Dillingham/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob
Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Frank Rishe/HOU/EES@EES,
Tom Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeffrey
Keeler/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Daniel Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES, Mary
Schoen/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Environmental Strategy Meeting
The Environmental Strategies group invites you to attend a company-wide,
Enron Environmental Strategy Meeting on September 15th from 9-2 (including
lunch & snacks). The purpose of the meeting is to start an internal dialogue
about the growing environmental market and ways in which Enron can capture
associated business opportunities. As many of you are aware, the
environmental market is quickly changing and expanding with a growing
correlation between energy efficiency, renewable energy, air emissions, and
new technology developments. Given our vast industry expertise and
comprehensive service, Enron has a significant advantage to meet these market
demands, which present both wholesale and retail opportunities.
For those of you that can attend, please RSVP by sending in a short
description of what you do, and any suggestions to the below tentative agenda
by Friday, September 8th. I'll circulate these descriptions to those who
have RSVPd along with a finalized agenda. The location is TBD.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 3-9916.
Stacey Bolton
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Introductions
Brief introductions including what you do for Enron and its related
environmental issues
Update on what each of the Enron groups are doing related to environmental
market opportunities
State of the Environmental Market, updates on:
Size of the market
Emission and Green Premiums
Customer demand for environmental products
Mandates and Incentive Funds
Credit trading programs
Utility and competitors renewable product offerings
Governments' efforts to "go green"
Current and pending air regulatory compliance issues
Concepts for discussion
Upcoming bids/commercial partnering opportunities
Trading Renewable Credits and Emissions Nationwide/Worldwide
Regulatory issues - Hot spots
Launching Environmental Product Offerings
Potential products:
-synthetic green energy product
-100% wind green credits
-new regulatory/compliance/risk management products
-bundled environmental performance improvement products
=====================================
|
4,214 |
Subject: Internet Daily for November 26, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/2075.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Monday, November 26, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Etail winners have solid foundation
Yahoo and Microsoft reported Monday dramatic year-on-year
increases in online shopping over the holiday weekend.
Yahoo's Jennifer Dulsky, senior brand manager, said the number
of transactions through her site was 75% greater compared to the
weekend after Thanksgiving last year, while Jim Barr,
Microsoft's general manager of commerce services, said online
visits to MSN Shopping were 150% higher. Both executives said
that while the overall number of selling merchants was
comparable to last year, there are fewer "pure play" etailers
and more in the way of traditional retailers, including
Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.
In a similar vein, visits on Friday to Web sites set up by some
other major brick-and-mortar retailers more than doubled from
last year. "Five of the six top virtual department stores find
their roots in strong brick-and-mortar brands," said Sean
Kaldor, vice president of analytical services at
Nielsen/NetRatings. Such a presence "has proven to be a
successful online formula."
Amazon.com was the sole Web-only company to be among the
biggest draws. It had 1.7 million visitors this year, compared
to 1.3 million last year. Still, this performance was more than
five times the number drawn by even the biggest gainer among
traditional retailers' sites, Wal-Mart, whose visitors totaled
355,000, up 132% from a year ago. Other online winners from the
"real" world included Target, Kmart, Sears Roebuck and J.C.
Penney.
Kaldor said 22% more home Internet users went online holiday
shopping Friday, compared to the average for Monday through
Thursday. But Friday's uptick was not as pronounced as the 27%
increase seen last year, Kaldor said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AOL membership passes 32 million
AOL Time Warner said Monday its global online service has more
than 32 million subscribers. That's a gain of 7 million members
in the past year. Barry Schuler, America Online's chairman,
credited the company's new AOL 7.0 software for helping the
average at-home user's online usage to rise to nearly 70 minutes
a day. The access program has been downloaded more than 7
million times since it was released last month. AOL also said
its premium-priced service for high-speed broadband connectivity
has met with "strong" consumer demand in 18 of Time Warner
Cable's largest markets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay searches offline for customers
EBay will use an eight-page printed catalog insert in 55
newspapers across the nation this holiday season to draw traffic
to its online auction sales. The company plans to distribute 23
million copies, according to The Wall Street Journal. "What we
know about the holidays is people traditionally shop in catalog
format," Annette Goodwine, eBay's senior director of brand
marketing, told the Journal. EBay is expected to spend $40
million for advertising this quarter, including the catalog and
television commercials broadcast on AOL Time Warner cable
properties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,215 |
Subject: Re: Teams
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1954.
=====================================
Ditto. I vote that we suggest to Christine that 5's too darned unwieldy and
that she look for another, smaller group. And if she's unable to find one
then we can talk.
Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]>
10/02/2000 11:19 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Teams
Hi Jeff,
I am easy, it just gets difficult to coordinate the more people you have,
it may be better of for her to find a smaller group, but if she has her
sights set on us, that's fine with me.
At 05:15 PM 9/28/00, [email protected] wrote:
>See my note and Christine's response. Thoughts? Suggestions? Jimmie,
>apparently she's had a crush on you ever since she heard you say,
>"Cash-sucking machine."
>----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 09/28/2000 07:11 PM -----
>
>
> Christine
> Piesco
>
> <christine.piesco@o To:
> [email protected]
> racle.com> cc:
>
> Subject: Re:
> Teams
> 09/28/2000 06:23
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>Sorry, I should have mentioned when we spoke that Prof Aceves already said
>it
>would be OK to join a group with 4, making it 5. He knew that would be the
>case. He suggested I pick a group, rather than him just randomly choosing
>one
>to assign me to. You seemed nice based on my initial reaction to meeting
>you,
>which is why I approached you about it.
>
>If the group has reservations based on my past group's experience, please
>let
>them know that the situation arose because I was out of the country for a
>week
>and a half without email access, and therefore wasn't able to contribute to
>two weeks of assignments. I had let Prof Aceves know about this planned
>business-related absence even before the course started, so he didn't
>penalize
>me. He forgot that I was the person who had sent him that note when my
>group
>approached him to let him know I hadn't contributed to two assignments. He
>said based on that, he would speak to the group to put me back in it if I
>wanted, or I could join another group. I hadn't had any conflicts
>whatsoever
>with the other group, I just had been out of communication, but I felt that
>given what had happened starting with a fresh group would be easier. In my
>opinion, it was just unfortunate that this trip happened two weeks into the
>class, before I could prove myself to my old group.
>
>If you can communicate both of these things to your other group members, I
>really would like to join you all. My alternative at this point would be to
>do
>the next assignment individually, since I wouldn't be able to find another
>group until two weeks from now, and then have the professor assign me to
>one.
>
>I greatly appreciate your help. If I can join you all, please let me know
>as
>soon as possible so I can make sure I contribute to the next assignment.
>
>Thanks,
>Christine
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
> > Christine:
> >
> > My apologies. My schedule melted down after we talked on Monday. Here's
> > where folks came out. There's some concern about size. We're supposed
>to
> > be no larger than 3, but we lobbied Aceves and he apparently Ok'd our
> > "oversized" group. The other folks in the group--who talked to him
> > originally--are pretty sure that five will violate the rules. Folks
> > wondered if there were other groups that are smaller than ours that you
> > could hook up with. Sorry about that---it's a wrinkle that I didn't
>think
> > about when we spoke. If it gets real ugly trying to find a smaller
>group,
> > let me know. Fortunately there's not another team case due for two
>weeks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
>
>--
>Christine Piesco
>Industrials Account Manager
>Oracle Corporation
>500 Oracle Parkway
>Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>Phone: (650) 506-3640
>Fax: (650) 633-3753
>[email protected]
>
>
>(See attached file: christine.piesco.vcf)
Kimberly Kupiecki
Senior Account Executive
A&R Partners
[email protected]
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801
=====================================
|
4,216 |
Subject: Internet Daily for November 05, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1903.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Monday, November 5, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Lycos redesign caters to advertisers
Terra Lycos reorganized its Web properties Monday to offer
users a "magazine" format and advertisers greater precision in
reaching consumers.
Several of the Lycos properties' home pages, including
Angelfire.com, Familyzone.lycos.com and Holidays.lycos.com, have
been reorganized to highlight news and information, rather than
listing resources and columns of links.
"The new sites let advertisers target highly desirable life
stages groups by putting their messages in front of users who
are drawn to 'magazine cover' formats that aggregate the hottest
news, tips and other content drawn from sites across the network
as well as content partners," said Stephen Killeen, president of
Terra Lycos U.S. "We are trying to deliver (the) audience and
put it in meaningful buckets for advertisers," added Rich
Gotham, vice president for sales, Reuters reported.
Killeen also said Lycos has seen strength in Internet
advertising sales, but could not be sure it was a result of
renewed business confidence or holiday seasonality. He told
Reuters the company will have more to say about advertising
sales when the company reports quarterly results later this
week.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AOL gets its way with Burger King
Diageo Plc's Burger King and AOL Time Warner announced a
multi-year marketing agreement. The companies said it is
designed to build customer loyalty and increase sales at the
fast food company's 8,300 stores in the U.S. One strategy will
be to give Burger King customers codes that will allow them to
access special sites through America Online www.burgerking.com,
where sports and music promotions will be offered. Further, AOL
is developing a "BK Backstage" custom site that will give users
music and video content, free music downloads and chats with
recording artists. Financial terms of the agreement were not
disclosed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Way taps Web for help
United Way organizations across the country are hoping the
Internet will deliver an infusion of funds at a time when
contributions have fallen off. The United Way is launching One
Day's Pay, an Internet-based solicitation asking people to
contribute all or a potion of a day's pay to local charities.
"The dramatic downturn in the economy ... has had a major
negative effect upon local giving, at a time when people are
looking for more help, not less," said Mark Germano, vice
president of the United Way in Chicago. Another local United Way
unit president said the drive is not meant to replace the units'
annual fund raising. "Participate in that and give more
generously than ever," said Maria Chavez of the Orange County,
Calif., chapter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deal of the day
TMP Worldwide's Monster.com said it will be the premier
provider of career content for Microsoft's MSN at
http://www.careers.msn.com/. Monster.com said it lists 1 million
job opportunities from 100,000 employers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,217 |
Subject: From Today's Electricity Daily
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2096.
=====================================
Has FERC Gone Far Enough in California?
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isn't going far enough in its
attempt to reform the California wholesale electric market, according to a
paper by three prominent economists done for San Diego Gas and Electric. The
paper by John D. Chandley, Scott M. Harvey, and William W. Hogan argues that
FERC should first end the artificial separation that divides the California
Power Exchange and the California Independent System Operator, rather than
worrying about the governance of the two institutions.
"The change in governance may help," says the paper - "Electricity Market
Reform in California" - "but it is not likely to be decisive in the near
term. Explicit guidance from the commission regarding the nature and
trajectory of reforms will be essential if market reform is to be
accomplished within an acceptable time frame." Hogan, of the Kennedy School
of Government, has been writing since 1995 in opposition to California's
market separation.
Also, argues the paper, freeing the California utilities to engage in
forward contracting is no panacea. "The expectation that merely allowing
utilities to participate in forward contracting necessarily would be the
solution to high prices is problematic and not supported by the commission's
staff report," says the analysis, adding that "putting pressure on buyers to
sign contracts in the present environment may make things worse." If the
underlying problem in California is high cost and low capacity, requiring
forward contracting could harm not only California but also the entire
Western U.S. electric system.
FERC's $150 so-called "soft cap" is a wild card that has the three
economists scratching their heads. "It does not appear in the staff report
and there is little critical analysis of their implications, other than the
discussion of Commissioner [Curt] Hebert." If the intent of the soft cap is
to move toward cost justification for bids above $150/MWh, then FERC is
headed into an administrative morass "that would rival those under wellhead
price controls in the natural gas industry."
If, on the other hand, the soft cap is "truly soft" and would only require
some paper work at FERC and the possibility of a refund if the price is
eventually deemed not just and reasonable, "there might be little impact on
consumer prices (particularly if the principal sources of those high prices
are high costs and regional capacity shortages rather than the exercise of
market power). Even so, the proposal might serve to deter entry and new
investments, thus combining the worst of both worlds, high consumer prices
and little or no new investment."
FERC's proposed order in California also demonstrates confusion about just
what constitutes market power. The paper cites the proposed order's
lawyerly, obfuscatory conclusion that "while this record does not support
findings of specific exercises of market power, and while we are not able to
reach definite conclusions about the actions of individual sellers, there is
clear evidence that in California market structure and rules provide the
opportunity for sellers to exercise market power when supply is tight and
can result in unjust and unreasonable rates under the [Federal Power Act]."
The economists note, "In this regard, the debate is confused because we are
dancing around the words where the truth may be hard to face."
In the case of California, say the economists, there is no evidence of
market power. Even the practice of generators avoiding the day-ahead market
in favor of the real-time market "is a response to bad market design and
pricing incentives (including price caps), but does not demonstrate the
exercise of market power." Nor is bidding above marginal cost necessarily an
exercise of market power, they add. "The distinction between direct marginal
cost and opportunity cost is sometimes lost in the discussion. Hence, a
competitive bidder whose direct cost of generation is $40 but who could sell
the same energy outside California for $100 should bid no less than $100.
This would not be an exercise of market power."
=====================================
|
4,218 |
Subject: FW: Suggestions to improve SEMPRA core aggregation program
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/natural_gas_strategy/11.
=====================================
FYI, this relates to the SoCal Gas / SDG&E Settlement Workshop to be held on
Wednesday in San Francisco.
Will any of you be attending or sending representatives?
Michael Rochman
?-----Original Message-----
From: ? Michael Rochman?
Sent:?? Monday, June 12, 2000 12:10 PM
To:???? Nancy W McVay (E-mail)
Cc:???? Alethea Imperial; Brian Cherry (E-mail)
Subject:??????? Suggestions to improve SMEPRA core aggregation program
Nancy,
Per our conversation, I will ask Alethea Imperial of our office to hand this
out at the meeting on Wednesday, since I will not be able to attend:
Customer migration to transport-only service will occur in significant
numbers, and the benefits of a competitive commodity market will accrue, only
if (a) the Utility Distribution Company exits the merchant function (as in
California noncore, Atlanta Gas & Light examples), or (b) non-regulated
suppliers have a realistic opportunity to "beat" the UDC price.
Over time, as customers migrate from bundled service, the emphasis on beating
the UDC price will fade (as it has in telecom), and end-users will actually
get a lower price, as the competitive suppliers' risk premiums associated
with targeting the price of a specific dominant competitor (the UDC) is
removed from prices.
Examples of methods to beat the price include:
shopping credits (as in New Jersey);
regulatory actions (as in the temporary price advantage due to core
interstate unbundling if the SoCal Gas Comprehensive Settlement is approved);
or
UDC monthly commodity price includes all actual retail-related costs
calculated on an account-average basis, such as billing, customer service,
marketing, etc., without reliance on economies of scale due to UDC
performance of transportation function. Currently, the UDC prices tend to
give wholesale, rather than retail, price signals and costs remain covered in
local transportation rates.
Suggestions for SEMPRA in this regard include:
Include the current "pipeline credit" ($0.0282 /MMBtu) as a component of the
posted core procurement rate, rather than as a deduction from local
transportation rates.
Establish a well-publicized fund to be paid to those who switch to transport
service on a first-come, first-serve basis. (This is John Leslie's
"prime-the-pump-and-get-good-publicity-for-the-UDC" suggestion.)
Commit to pricing for a 6 to 24 month period to be expressed as NGI SoCal
CityGate plus or minus, so long as it is computed to include all retail,
fully-delivered cost components.
Compute core procurement price to send retail price signal, either by
re-allocation of costs, by actual separation of procurement function to a
separate, regulated utility under the SEMPRA umbrella, or by outsourcing
procurement function to third party(ies).
Post a (projected or actual) "standard offer" price in advance for a 6 to 24
month period, so long as it is computed to include all retail,
fully-delivered cost components.
Make a clear policy statement that SEMPRA wishes to exit the merchant
function, even if only at some date to be determined in the future.
To help educate consumers, all SEMPRA invoices should show core procurement
price as applied to prorated therms consumed during the meter read cycle,
rather than current practice of simply stating the monthly procurement
price(s) but only showing the total, bundled price for each cycle on the
invoice. For example, show "100 therms at April price of $0.25 = $25.00, plus
50 therms at May price of $0.30 = $15.00, plus transport fee of $50.00,
equals $90.00"; rather than the current practice of showing "usage of 150
therms from April 10 to May 10 equals $90.00.")
All SEMPRA materials regarding core aggregation should emphasize advantages
of transport-only service: the availability of fixed or other pricing plans
to more closely meet end-user risk management needs (emphasizing that SEMPRA
has only a one-size-fits-all pricing option), the availability of customized
bill presentment and delivery (potentially saving multi-site end-users
thousands of dollars per year and reducing paper for all end-users),
availability of discounts on other goods or services not offered by SEMPRA,
etc.
=====================================
|
4,219 |
Subject: EnronOnline Article
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28863.
=====================================
USA: INTERVIEW-EnronOnline sees volume growth, CEO says.
By Gelu Sulugiuc
07/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
NEW YORK, July 17 (Reuters) - As most players in a shrinking pool of online
energy trading platforms struggle to stay alive, leader EnronOnline has a
simple philosophy: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Internet arm of the energy marketing and trading giant Enron Corp. ,
EnronOnline predicts it will increase its volume and says it can coexist with
the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), the chief executive of Enron Networks
told Reuters on Tuesday.
The innovative company is always evaluating its business environment, ready
to remold itself according to market demands, but it is not pursuing mergers
or aquisitions for now, according to Greg Piper.
"I would never say never, but we're not proactively looking at aquiring an
ownership position in any other exchange platform," Piper said.
With an average of $3.5 billion in trades every day, EnronOnline enjoys the
highest volume of all energy electronic platforms. Most energy trading
platforms launched last year have failed to generate profits.
Its closest rival is ICE, which routinely exceeds $1 billion a day. But while
ICE is a many-to-many exchange that matches bids and offers, on EnronOnline
one can only trade with Enron.
"It's a tool that supercharges our market-making business," Piper said.
Enron is the No. 1 natural gas and electricity marketer in the United States.
About 60 percent of its transactions are captured through the electronic
platform.
"As long as we show good prices to our customers, our volumes will continue
to grow," Piper said.
The company is looking to grow online volume in products such as metals,
steel, weather, petrochemicals and plastics.
"We're trying to remain the leader in energy and help our other markets get
more traction," Piper said. "There is a huge amount of growth that we haven't
even tapped into yet."
Piper said he is not worried about ICE's recent success. The Atlanta-based
exchange recently took over London's International Petroleum Exchange and
plans to transfer its open-outcry business online, significantly boosting its
trade volumes.
"Maybe six to 12 months from now, the story might be a lot different," Piper
said. "But right now, there is room for the both of us."
He added that Enron traders do not shy away from trading on ICE. Many of the
energy giants that founded ICE and provide most of its liquidity are also
Enron's biggest clients.
"Enron will seek out a good deal on ICE when there is one," Piper said.
INNOVATION KEY TO SUCCESS
Recognized as one of the most innovative companies in the United States,
Enron is constantly evaluating its position in the market and thinking of
ways to become more successful.
"The right thing to do in November 1999 was to launch EnronOnline," Piper
said. "But we look at it every day and if it made sense to do something
different, you can bet that Enron would do it and we wouldn't be emotional
about it."
One of the company's advantages is the fact that its software is a flexible
application that allows EnronOnline to easily go in an out of different
markets and regions. It constantly adds new products to its trading arsenal.
But Piper said that EnronOnline has no plans to turn itself in a many-to-many
exchange.
"We want to focus in providing our markets to others," he said. "In the near
term, we're not changing that."
The company is considering licensing the application itself, but would not
elaborate on who wants it and how much Enron would ask for it.
EnronOnline has been so successful that even its competitors take their hats
off.
"I've been hearing for two years now that a one-to-many exchange wouldn't
work, but Enron just keeps proving people wrong," said Frank Getman, chief
executive of online energy exchange HoustonStreet.
"If you're willing to make tight two-way markets and be the best price in the
market, then people will continue to use your site."
Enron's stock rose 41 cents to $49.53 a share on Tuesday in trading on the
New York Stock Exchange.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
4,220 |
Subject: RE: IT's ALEADY BEEN CIRCULATED to customers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1721.
=====================================
Sue, let's you, Mike, and I talk to Ed Duncan about revising the Brief. I don't think it matters that a draft went to some customers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:49 AM
To: Williams, Robert C.
Cc: Mann, Michael; Sharp, Vicki; Frazier, Lamar; Schwarz, Angela; Keeney, Kevin; Blachman, Jeremy; Steffes, James D.; Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike
Subject: IT's ALEADY BEEN CIRCULATED to customers
Importance: High
Bob,
AS you can see from the e-mail I sent you, I believe it has aleady been circulated to customers -- by today, if not yesterday. This is the same draft that you received from me on Monday. Bob, we have to move fast -- we have to be prepared to file within a few hours of any CPUC action. Believe me, chaos will begin if the CPUC votes for retroactive DA suspension
Others,
Given Bob's request, please do not circulate to any more of our customers until further notice.
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C.
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:05 AM
To: Mara, Susan
Cc: Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike
Subject: RE: Preparing for Legal Action against a retroactive DA suspension
Sue, there are some statements in the brief that would be contrary to positions we would take in arbitration on ouu unwind rights. For now, please don't circulate to any customers. I will take a look at the language more closely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:17 PM
To: Mann, Michael; Sharp, Greg; Frazier, Lamar; Schwarz, Angela; Keeney, Kevin
Cc: Blachman, Jeremy; Steffes, James D.; Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul; Williams, Robert C.
Subject: Preparing for Legal Action against a retroactive DA suspension
Importance: High
As of this point in time, the CPUC is NOT expected to vote tomorrow. The CPUC has not said when a new meeting would be held. Although we continue to keep the pressure on, the CPUC vote could be for DA suspension as of July 1. We need to be prepared to take immediate legal action in that event. Here is the plan and what we'd like from customers.
Within a few hours of a CPUC vote, we plan to file at the CPUC for an emergency stay and request for rehearing. As part of that filing, we would need to include all of the points we would raise in the court and declarations from each individual aggrieved party. The decalarations would be held completely confidential by the attorney, transmitted directly through our outside attorney and would be filed under protective seal at the Commission. The attorneys are preparing a pro-forma declaration that each party can use to prepare their own. I will e-mail that as soon as I have it. The draft court case is attached. It will form the basis for our CPUC filing.
We would expect the CPUC to ignore the filing. If the Commission failed to act on our request by the next regularly scheduled meeting, we would file in court immediately. We would use the same declarations and much of the same filing info in the court case.
To the extent we have customers on our filings, we have a much better shot at winning. I have gotten agreements form a number of other ESPs who will join with us. They are: APSES, Strategic Energy, AES/New Energy, American Utility Network, and perhaps Commonwealth. Each of these, in turn, is working to get some of their customers to sign on. I am working with UC's attorney to see if they will join.
Our strategy is similar if the Legislature enacts a law with a retroactive date. The major differences are that we would go directly to court and we would have to wait until the bill was signed by the Governor. Some of our ESP and customer friends would likely drop off at that point, because they have less financial harm from an Aug 25 date.
If you have customers intersted in signing on, please let me know. The customer may contact me or the attorneys directly. Here is contact info:
Sue Mara, Enron Government Affairs, (415) 782-7802
Dan Douglass, outside attorney (formerly with Arter & Hadden), preparing CPUC filing (818) 596-2201
Ed Duncan, Arter & Hadden, preparing court case (818) 596-2291
<< File: Joint Petition Sept 10 Draft.doc >>
=====================================
|
4,221 |
Subject: EBS/BBI news release, message points & Q&As
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9848.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/12/2001 04:27 PM -----
Scott Bolton@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
03/12/2001 02:25 PM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephen D Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Allison
Navin/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo
Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@ENRON, Barbara A
Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Carmen Perez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Karen Huang/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Eric
Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: EBS/BBI news release, message points & Q&As
I am forwarding the talking points and briefing info on the Blockbuster/EBS
situation from the EBS PR Dept. Sue/Steve/Allison - they have asked for
guidance and a dowload on the cable issue in anticipation on the NAB
conference in mid-April. Let's discuss on the next call. Thanks.
Scott
----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 03/12/01 12:19 PM
-----
Donna Kocourek
03/12/01 11:16 AM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: EBS/BBI news release, message points & Q&As
___________________________
Donna M.R. Kocourek
Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
Manager, Event Marketing
PH: 503/886-0181
CELL: 503/701-6866
FAX: 503/425-6008
[email protected]
www.enron.net
----- Forwarded by Donna Kocourek/Enron Communications on 03/12/01 11:20 AM
-----
Kelly Kimberly
Sent by: Stacy Walker
03/12/01 09:21 AM
To: Darran Binns/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Terrie
James/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Shelly Mansfield/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Maryanne Miller/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Eddie Sera/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Carin Andre/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Colleen Case/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Anita Cullen/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Paul Gyles/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Janet Johnson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Donna Kocourek/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jessica Nevin/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Tom Ogden/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Laurie Purviance/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Tracy Smith/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Genevieve Athens/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Steve McNear/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Courtney Childers/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Ellie Ahmadi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mary Anne
Collins/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Syni Brent/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Leah Ragiel/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Randall Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mark
Solana/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Elizabeth Peters/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Anthony Mends/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Candi Woods/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Rita
Hartfield/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, David Gossett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Holly Bradford-Nelson/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Martin Lassen/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Norman Levine/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Bessik Matchavariani/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Lynette
Malone/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Robin Hilp/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Cheryle Wiese/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Krista Reed/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Debora
Wallace/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: EBS/BBI news release, message points & Q&As
Attached are the EBS news release, message points and Q&As regarding our
termination of our contract with Blockbuster. You may distribute the news
release, but use the message points and Q and As only for communicating with
your audiences--do not distribute them. Please refer all media inquiries to
me. Let me know if you have questions.
=====================================
|
4,222 |
Subject: Contra Costa Times Article
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Jennifer Thome" <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28526.
=====================================
fyi...
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 07/10/2001
01:30 PM ---------------------------
"Ken Smith" <[email protected]> on 07/10/2001 01:12:24 PM
Please respond to "Ken Smith" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
cc: "Jennifer Thome" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, "Karen Denne" <[email protected]>
Subject: Contra Costa Times Article
Here's an article from the Contra Costa Times to add to your clip list.? It
includes a partial list of the companies and public entities that sold power
to the state from Jan. 18 through May 31, and the dollars involved.
?
Ken
?
Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001
State discloses spot power buys
By Andrew LaMar
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SACRAMENTO -- They range from small power sales of $922,000 by the East Bay
Municipal Utility District to more than $1 billion of power sold by
Atlanta-based Mirant power company.
All told, California paid $7.7 billion in spot purchases of electricity from
69 agencies across the United States during the first five months of 2001,
according to a report delivered to lawmakers Monday.
The data also shows that the state paid a hefty average of $263 per
megawatt-hour for the power. But what's most striking is the long list of
agencies, both private and public, that sold power to California.
Agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, $331 million; the
California Independent System Operator, $3.9 million; Public Service Company
of New Mexico, $126 million; and PG&E Energy Trading Company, $24 million.
Receiving the most money was Atlanta-based Mirant, which sold $1.2 billion
of electricity to the state January through May. The second-largest seller
was Powerex, a subsidiary of Canada's BC Hydro, which earned $1 billion.
The total cost per day ranged from as little as $20 million to more than
$100 million on three separate days in May, when hot weather and tight
supplies boosted spot market prices.
In addition, the report reveals that the state's energy consultants
significantly underestimated the amount of energy the state would need to buy
in April and May. Navigant Consulting, Inc., forecast the state would have
to buy 12.1 million megawatt-hours for the two months but the state ended up
purchasing 15.1 million megawatt-hours.
The Sellers
The following is a partial list of companies that sold electricity into the
California spot power market from Jan. 18 through May 31. For a full list, go
to www.contracostatimes.com.
Company name, total dollar amount:
Allegheny Energy, $97,113,823
Arizona Public Services, $748,400
Automated Power Exchange, $2,541
Bonneville Power, $167,543,006
BP Energy, $110,776,576
California Department of Water Resources, $84,672,490
Calpine Energy, $29,169,658
City of Anaheim, $6,707,456
City of Burbank, $92,271,904
City of Glendale, $16,106,550
City of Redding, $85,280
City of Riverside, $62,700
City of Seattle, $2,461,225
City of Tacoma, $2,353,465
City of Vernon, $4,398,288
Commission de Federale Electricidad, $9,800,460
Duke Energy, $164,325,467
Dynegy, $296,294,363
East Bay Municipal Utility District, $922,560
El Paso Merchant Energy, $83,923,493
Enron Power Marketing, Inc., $44,276,800
Eugene Water & Electric Board, $94,147,219
Fresno Cogeration, $214,008
Grant County PUD, $49,013,211
Merrill Lynch Capital Services, $92,185,980
Modesto Irrigation District, $87,500
Morgan Stanley Capital Group, $8,864,625
Nevada Power Company, $25,378,035
PG&E Energy Trading Companies, $23,718,708
Portland General Electric Company, $354,821
Public Service Company of New Mexico, $126,799,436
Puget Sound Energy, $40,000
Reliant Energy Service, $122,598,810
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $80,673,353
San Diego Gas & Electric, $5,768,380
Sempra Companies, $429,019,440
Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara), $116,000
TransCanada Power, $38,829,528
Tucson Electric Power, $10,236,050
UC Davis Med Center, $1,141,600
U.S. Dept. of Energy, $2,605,855
=====================================
|
4,223 |
Subject: Re: Ca demand vs Texas
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10366.
=====================================
John: Please keep this confidential, but as you can see, this is not at all
what I'm looking for. I need what we discussed yesterday.
Thanks,
Jeff
Lynnette Barnes
03/23/2001 12:19 PM
To: John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Ca demand vs Texas
Ventura County Star February 27, 2001 Tuesday
Copyright 2001 Ventura County Star ?
Ventura County Star
February 27, 2001 Tuesday
SECTION: News; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 579 words
HEADLINE: State not a major power glutton
CHARGES FALL FLAT: Statistics show California to be cautious user of energy
supplies
BYLINE: Andrew Bridges; The Associated Press
BODY:
LOS ANGELES -- California's continuing power crisis has led neighboring
states to accuse the Golden State of hogging electricity, saying its appetite
for energy threatens to plunge the entire West into darkness.
But the numbers paint a different picture, one of a California that does use
a vast amount of electricity but consumes less on a per-capita basis than all
other states except Rhode Island.
Mild weather and having proportionately fewer energy-gobbling industries than
some other states are part of the reason. However, experts say credit also
must go to stringent conservation guidelines.
"It's true we're big, and it's true we didn't build a lot of power plants
because of restructuring. But we're not energy hogs at all," said Arthur
Rosenfeld, who sits on the five-member California Energy Commission. "We're
almost as good as Western Europe, and Western Europe is about twice as energy
efficient as the United States."
Among the 50 states, only Texas consumes more energy -- its total use of
electricity, natural gas and oil -- than California.
However, California ranks 47th in per-capita energy use -- well below No. 4
Texas, No. 20 Washington and No. 27 Oregon, according to statistics from the
Energy Information Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy.
When looking specifically at per-capita electricity consumption, California
ranks 49th. The state's residents use 60 percent as much electricity as the
average American.
For air conditioning alone, a typical California household uses one-third the
amount of electricity as a household in Texas or Florida, according to the
U.S. Department of Energy's 1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
Experts say both weather and conservation measures play large roles in that
figure.
"It's a different climate, so even if you do have warm summers, they're not
humid (in California), so you don't have the big, huge air conditioning load
you see in Florida or Texas," said Robert Latta, the survey's manager at the
Energy Information Administration.
California also uses electricity, as well as natural gas, oil and coal, more
wisely than most states thanks to aggressive conservation efforts started
during the oil shocks of the early 1970s, federal and state data show.
Key to those efforts are stringent standards for new homes and commercial
buildings that dictate such guidelines as the types of windows and lighting
that can be used to the amount of insulation. Roughly 60 percent of the
electricity used in California goes to heat, cool and light those structures.
"If (California) is not the leading state, they are at least tied for it" in
efficiency standards, said Ed Wisniewski, deputy director of the Boston-based
Consortium for Energy Efficiency. "Historically, they have been very
progressive, and many of the programs we advocate nationally were started in
California."
The California Energy Commission, which shapes state energy policy and
planning, estimates California's average demand for electricity at any given
time at about 50,000 megawatts. That figure would be much greater if not for
conservation efforts, Rosenfeld said. "If we used as much electricity as
Texas, we'd be a 100,000-megawatt state," he said.
Texas has more heavy industry, less stringent conservation mandates and a
harsher climate. On the residential side, Texans use 50 percent more energy
per household than Californians, much of that for heating and cooling.
LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2001
=====================================
|
4,224 |
Subject: Fwd: SF Chronicle - Critics Say ISO Rookies Will Hinder Resolving
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9286.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/20/2001 06:52 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
02/20/2001 06:47 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: SF Chronicle - Critics Say ISO Rookies Will Hinder Resolving
Crisis
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Tue, 20 Feb
2001 18:42:24 -0600 -----
To: "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll"
<[email protected]>
Subject: SF Chronicle - Critics Say ISO Rookies Will Hinder Resolving Crisis
FYI - This article has quotes from FERC Chairman Hebert. He was highly
critical of the "politicized control of transmission."
Critics Say ISO Rookies Will Hinder Resolving Crisis
Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, February 20, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Experience in the complicated world of energy didn't matter much when Gov.
Gray Davis went shopping for a new set of policymakers to oversee the state-
sponsored California Independent System Operator.
Davis named five new members to the Cal-ISO board last month, replacing an
unwieldy 26-member board whose members were selected to balance competing
interests in electricity supply and transmission.
The prior board was packed with longtime players in various industry and
energy-policy arenas. But the board's reluctance to cap rates, among other
things, led some to question its independence -- and eventually caused its
demise when the Legislature moved to restructure the agency, based in Folsom,
technically a nonprofit public-benefit corporation but in reality an arm of
state energy policy.
The new board includes only one member -- Mike Florio, senior attorney at The
Utility Reform Network (TURN), a San Francisco-based consumer group -- with
any significant background in the energy field.
Florio, a perennial critic of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and other
regulated utilities, was among the original members of the Cal-ISO board
Davis and the Legislature dumped. Now, he is the only veteran left,
surrounded by eager rookies.
"There will be a learning curve, no question," said Terry Winter, Cal-ISO's
chief executive officer.
Remedial training is under way, but critics fear that may get in the way of
solutions to the fast-breaking state power crisis.
Curt Hebert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also
faulted the new board's close ties to Sacramento, saying that "politicized
control of transmission" could deter suppliers from entering California and
sour other states on the idea of regional cooperation.
"The ISO should operate as a truly independent operator of the grid," Hebert
said. "But initial signs are not encouraging. Legislation adopted that makes
the ISO board a political arm of the governor, with five handpicked members,
could prove to be detrimental in the long run."
Other observers view the Sacramento connection as a plus.
"I expect there will be better overall coordination with the state now," said
Susan Schneider, a former PG&E executive who now advises industry clients as
a principal at Phoenix Consulting. "There's been a bit of a disconnect."
The new board members insisted that the governor had started them out with no
marching orders other than to do what's in the public's best interest. And
while Davis' board may not know its new business quite yet, its members boast
some formidable resumes in other fields.
In any case, they have little direct control over the most important policy
matters being decided in Sacramento and Washington. But that's not to say the
Cal-ISO board has no significant role.
"The ISO is going to be an important gear in whatever machine ends up fixing
this thing," said Eric Saltmarsh, general counsel at the state Electricity
Oversight Board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A11
=====================================
|
4,225 |
Subject: Fwd: Edison gets more time; Calif. may sell $14 bln bonds
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10630.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/04/2001 11:52 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
04/04/2001 11:41 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Edison gets more time; Calif. may sell $14 bln bonds
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 04 Apr
2001 08:34:07 -0500 -----
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Edison gets more time; Calif. may sell $14 bln bonds
Tuesday April 3, 6:15 pm Eastern Time
Edison gets more time; Calif. may sell $14 bln bonds
(UPDATE: Recasts, adds details throughout, byline)
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, April 3 (Reuters) - Edison International (NYSE:EIX - news), parent
of troubled utility Southern California Edison, said on Tuesday bankers are
giving it and the utility more time to cure their defaults on three credit
lines.
The announcement came after the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC),
which sets rates, also on Tuesday voted to authorize the state's Department
of Water Resources to sell between $12 billion and $14 billion of bonds to
finance power purchases, and examine the financial links between the
utilities and their parents.
The 30-day extension from Edison's banks means the banks will ``forbear,'' or
not act upon, the credit line defaults.
``That will take us out to basically around April 14,'' said Ted Craver,
chief financial officer of Edison International, during an investor
conference call. The prior forbearance, the banks' second, had expired March
13.
The California power crisis has led to periodic blackouts and left SoCal
Edison, which owes more than $5.4 billion for post power costs, and the
state's largest utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which owes about $8.9
billion, on the brink of bankruptcy. A rate freeze imposed under the state's
1996 utility deregulation law has prevented them from passing on their
soaring wholesale power costs to consumers.
Though the PUC awarded the utilities a roughly 40 percent rate hike last
week, allowing them to collect $4.8 billion more each year, analysts and the
utilities said the hike effectively does nothing to let the utilities to
recoup their prior costs.
``At best the utility is standing still (in that) it hasn't improved its cash
flow or its cash position,'' said Craver. ``At worst, it is going backwards.
That's our basic conclusion on the numbers and the mechanisms as we
understand them.''
San Francisco-based PG&E Corp. (NYSE:PCG - news), parent of Pacific G&E, has
said it expects to take a $4.1 billion charge for unrecouped electricity
costs, while Rosemead, Calif.-based Edison has said it may take a
``substantial'' charge that may total as much as $2.7 billion.
The California Independent System Operator, which runs most of the state's
power grid, early on Tuesday called another Stage Two emergency alert because
of supply problems. Such alerts are declared when power reserves fall to
within 5 percent of peak demand. The alert was later lifted.
Edison shares closed Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange at $12.82, up 27
cents, or 2.2 percent. PG&E shares closed on the Big Board at $11.53, down 22
cents, or 1.9 percent.
Craver also said in the conference call that SoCal Edison has rolled over
364-day and 5-year Libor-based credit facilities that recently matured for a
respective 30 and 90 days, and that Edison rolled over one of its own
facilities for 45 days.
He concluded the call by expressing relief that creditors have not yet thrown
the utility into bankruptcy, which analysts have said could already have
happened by now had the PUC not granted the rate hike.
``I'm somewhat amazed about how disciplined everybody has been,'' he said.
``We're seeking protection from misguided regulatory decisions, and the
solution is really in that same venue, in the regulatory and political and
legislative context.''
=====================================
|
4,226 |
Subject: US FERC Chairman Vows Action By Dec On Western Pwr Woes
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2177.
=====================================
US FERC Chairman Vows Action By Dec On Western Pwr Woes
?
10/05/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will
act no later than December in response to power capacity and volatility
problems that plagued Western power markets this year, Chairman James Hoecker
said Thursday.
Hoecker, after appearing before the Senate Energy Committee, told reporters
that he expected the results of an expedited staff investigation of the
matter to be forwarded to the commission before the month is out.
The commission will "take serious action" in response to the staff report
"before the holidays," he said, without elaborating.
Before the panel, Hoecker said he expected the commission to act in response
to the staff's nationwide probe of problems besetting competitive wholesale
markets before the end of this year. The staff report on the nationwide
investigation is due Nov. 1.
In meeting with reporters after the hearing, Hoecker appeared to indicate
that the response to the Western market woes could come sooner than December.
Hoecker outlined the tentative timetable after the Senate hearing into
concerns the Pacific Northwest is becoming increasingly prone to power supply
shortages in the coming years.
The Northwest Power Planning Council projects that by 2003 the regions runs a
one in four risk of a power shortage - and resulting grid blackouts or
brownouts - during peak summer and winter demand periods as demand outstrips
supply.
In order to lessen that 25% risk to an acceptable 5%, the council determined
the region would need an additional 3,000 megawatts of new generation
capacity, either installed or imported from elsewhere.
The hearing featured testimony from the Bonneville Power Administration and
others regarding how California's grid capacity problems this summer have had
an adverse affect on the region in terms of price volatility.
Prepared testimony from BPA featured a graph illustrating that the region's
spot market prices during the two years prior to California's power market
restructuring never exceeded $50 per megawatt-hour, and typically were well
below that level.
Since the California power exchange began operating in May 1998, spot market
volatility markedly increased into a price spike this summer in excess of
$200 per megawatt-hour.
But another key factor in the Pacific Northwest's problems was dry weather
that depressed available hydropower generation from the region's massive
complex of federally owned dams, said Stephen Oliver, BPA's vice president of
bulk power marketing and transmission services.
The difference between a wet year and a dry year is 5,000 megawatts of power
generation capacity, Oliver told the committee.
Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., who chaired the hearing, elicited from Oliver
that operational changes mandated to aid migration of salmon and other
endangered fish cost the system another 1,000 megawatts of capacity.
"At this point, the pricing problems in California and the Northwest appear
to be related," he said, citing near-record warm weather in the region and
lower-than normal hydropower availability.
Additionally, Hoecker attributed the region's price volatility to
California's "very high reliance on the spot market."
The supplies of power in the U.S. West are "simply inadequate," Hoecker said.
The picture painted by the hearing testimony served in contrast to the
"rumbling" of officials in California that imports of federal hydropower from
the Pacific Northwest were contributing to California's market problems,
noted Sen. Gordon Smith R-Ore.
"It is the structure of (California's) market that has created the problem,"
said Smith, noting, too, that the state's discouragement of new power plant
capacity has contributed to the problem.
"It looks like the markets have gone haywire," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.,
who attributed the problems to deregulated power markets. He vowed to fight
any congressional deregulation legislation that threatens to raise power
costs in the Pacific Northwest.
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6647; [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,227 |
Subject: FW: RE-SCHEDULE NOTICE - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29346.
=====================================
I take it you are no longer going to Portland? I need to cancel your tickets
then. Would you let me know?
Thanks,
Joseph
---------------------- Forwarded by Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron on 07/31/2001 01:27
PM ---------------------------
From: Lysa Tracy/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/31/2001 03:22 PM CDT
To: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: FW: RE-SCHEDULE NOTICE - Western Government Affairs Meeting
-----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
=====================================
|
4,228 |
Subject: RE: Comments: Emergency AReM Pleading
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/302.
=====================================
Peter,
The concern about customers who were never on utility service is not
just a large customer issue. I have thousands of customers that did not
contribute to the DWR undercollection and should not have to repay it.
On the other hand, a large customer who went DA today, should have to
repay it because they enjoyed the benefits of DWR procurement for half a
year.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:41 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Comments: Emergency AReM Pleading
? The "special preference for green customers" should be less vague,
or
dropped. This includes the reference in the 2nd paragraph in the
"Conclusions" section. Rick, do you have something in mind?
? On its face, this bullet looks like it's reaching (too far):
"End-users
who never received procurement services from either the utility or
DWR
as of the effective date of the Commission order implementing this
proposal would be exempt from the DRC related to the bonds and the
UDRC
related to the utility's past procurement-related debt." [From
Option
A; there is a parallel provision in Option B.] The bullet
(currently)
reads as if there is a special pass to be handed out to those (large
customers) able to make quick DA contracting decisions. That's not
OK.
I assume that the author's intent is clearly covered in the two
bullets
that follow the offensive bullet (both in Option A and B).
Therefore,
rather than convoluting (to correct) the offensive paragraph(s),
let's
just drop it (them).
? Given the e-mail exchange with Bill Booth, I believe that CLECA would
join TURN to OPPOSE an AReM proposal (perhaps even the motion), and
in
particular, the Option B element: "Utility customers who choose
Direct
Access would be required to pay:?[a] long-term dedicated rate
component
("LTDRC") to cover the customer's proportionate share of any
above-market costs associated with DWR's long-term contracts?."
While I
do not propose that AReM adapt its positioning to accommodate CLECA,
I
observe that AReM would be leading with its chin.
Dan, you've done a killer job in close to zero real-time. Wow. Kudos.
Peter
To: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Emergency
AReM Pleading
"Dan Douglass"
<[email protected]>
08/09/01 11:57 AM
----------------------------------+
Just in advance of the conference scheduled for a few minutes from now,
attached for your review and comment are the following two documents:
1. A motion for permission to file supplemental comments on the draft
decision of ALJ Barnett and the alternate draft decision of Commissioner
Bilas; and
2. The supplemental comments, in which the proposal circulated
yesterday
is
included.
Please note there have been some changes to the bullet point proposal.
Some
is merely wording to make it read more smoothly. However, Option A also
includes Peter Bray's suggestion that the participation limit include a
20%
DA capacity reservation for residential and small commercial customers,
with
preference for those using green power. Also, this has been dated for
filing on Monday, rather than Friday, because Rick Counihan and I could
not
see how parties could provide comments and have us agree on a final
version
by Friday.
All comments will be greatly appreciated, as soon as possible.
Dan
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 596-2201
Fax: (818) 346-6502
[email protected]
(See attached file: 8-13-01 AReM Supp Comments - Draft 1.doc)(See
attached
file: Motion to File Supplemental Comments.doc)
=====================================
|
4,229 |
Subject: Western Governors update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8526.
=====================================
here you go. I sent a copy to Linda Robertson too so she'd be in the know.
----- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron on 01/24/2001 11:01 AM -----
Susan M Landwehr
01/23/2001 09:52 PM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Western Governors update
All--had a good meeting with Governor Owens today. Also in attendance were
Roy Palmer (chief of staff), Alan Philp (special assistant), Joel Harris
(senior policy aide to the governor). The good Governor stated his strong
disagreement of price caps and that he would oppose any efforts to impose
them on the western states. He will be a stong ally for us in this debate.
He stopped short of offering to "rally the republican troops", but did offer
that he thought most of his colleagues would be of the same mindset. He will
not be attending the Feb 2 meeting, but his policy guy is empowered to
speak/vote on his behalf if any type of vote comes before the WGA membership
at that time. Since this WGA debate is probably going to continue into 2001,
we will plan on keeping in close touch with Gov. Owens and his staff.
The Governor will be attending a world economic summit in Davos starting
tomorrow, and indicated that he will be having dinner with Ken Lay at that
event. He again stated his appreciation for Mr. Lay's support in the past as
well as his high regard for Mr. Lay's business practices.
I have invited the Governor'spolicy folks to tour our trading floor on
Thursday Feb 1 in Portland if they come in early. I have also promised them
an outline of possible solutions/ideas that could be considered by the WGA
instead of price caps. Paul has already put a draft together of such a
document, and we will make sure that everyone on this list sees a copy of our
ideas before sending them on.
----- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron on 01/23/2001 09:26 PM -----
Susan M Landwehr
01/21/2001 11:03 PM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Western Governors update
Jim et al---Paul and I have a meeting in Denver on Tuesday with Governor Bill
Owen's chief of staff (Roy Palmer) and two of his policy guys. The Governor
is expected to stop in for a few minutes. I also had the occasion to talk
with Gov Owens this weekend in Washington DC, and I he articulated his
support for "market" solutions. He also will be an individual that we can
count on to know the issues....he apparently was a lobbyist at one time for
the oil and gas industry. Also, Gov Owens mentioned that he had breakfast
with Ken Lay sometime in the last few months and that he had received support
from Ken in the past. Can we find out what support Owens was given? (I got
the sense that it might have been some money dedicated to a community or
government program...maybe the Aspen Institute? And it sounded like he had
gotten some $ for his campaign)
Unfortunately, Gov Owens will be leaving for an overseas trip this week and
will not be attending the Feb 2 meeting in Portland, so our hope that he
would be a stong voice at the meeting is not going to happen. I think that
we can get some good work done with the staff, and good support in the long
term, but we need to look beyond Owens for this meeting.
I got the sense over the weekend that Kempthorne is going to be pretty active
on this issue, and since he is the chair of the WGA, he will be running the
meeting. In talking with FERC Commissioner Hebert at one of the inaugural
events, he indicated that Kempthorne seemed to be pretty reluctant to take on
the mantle of market solutions. Paul has a meeing with Kempthorne's office
on Friday of this week, so we'll be working on convincing him to be an
advocate.
As you know, Jim Souby from WGA did eventually make room on the panel for the
FEB 2 meeting for us. A letter of invitation should be on it's way to Steve
Kean if it has not already been received.
I saw Hap Boyd and he says that Enron Wind is participating on Feb. 2 in the
afternoon session.
=====================================
|
4,230 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4375.
=====================================
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 7, 2000
_________________________________________________________
Under TURN Proposal Electric Rates Could Be Held at 5 Cents a KWH
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 6, 2000 via NewsEdge Corporation -
An immediate way to
get electric rates under control was offered today by TURN, the
Utility Reform Network. The plan, included in a report titled "The 5
Cent Plan for California's Energy Crisis," would keep electricity
affordable while larger, long-range reforms are contemplated. Under
the proposal, the utilities would be required to sell consumers
electricity at the rate of 5 cents per kwh. Unlike utility proposals
calling for increases of up to 35%, TURN's proposal would hold rates
at or below current levels.
"The time for debate about deregulation is over," said Nettie
Hoge, executive director of TURN, the Utility Reform Network. "The
time for action is here, and the bottom line is no rate increases."
TURN's plan, like Governor Davis', requires that the utilities
stop selling off their generation assets. But under TURN's proposal,
the profits from those electrical generation facilities, which were
paid for by ratepayers, would benefit ratepayers. Rates for
residential customers would be cost-based, with large commercial and
industrial customers free to broker their own deals.
"Now that California's deregulation experiment has blown up in our
faces, consumers expect action from their elected representatives, who
forced deregulation on us despite widespread opposition," Hoge said.
"While looking at a long range strategy to get us out of the mess they
created, leaders can easily implement these reforms guaranteeing that
consumers will pay no more than 5 cents a kwh for the electricity they
need."
TURN's proposals include:
-- Electricity provided to residential and small business
customers at 5 cents per kwh.
-- Utility companies retain their remaining electric generation
facilities, and the revenues from the sale of that electricity
are credited primarily to ratepayers, not shareholders.
-- Utilities increase use of long-term contract for purchasing
power -- but purchases over the 5-cent benchmark would be
presumed unreasonable.
-- Utilities required to include renewables in their residential
power purchases.
Hoge said if the utilities are unwilling to provide residential
electric service at the reasonable price proposed by TURN, the state
should create a new public power entity, "CalPower," and charge it
with the responsibility of serving residential customers. "We are
tired of being guinea pigs," Hoge said. "Consumers can't pay their
electric bills with promises that deregulation will work. We need
reasonable rates and we need them now."
The report, and charts contrasting the utilities' proposed rate
hikes with TURN's proposed reforms, are available on our Web site at
www.turn.org/turnarticles/news.
CONTACT: TURN | Bob Finkelstein, 415/929-8876, ext. 301 | Mind=
y=20
Spatt, 415/929-8876, ext. 306
_________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
4,231 |
Subject: NGI Article: El Paso Seeks to Derail Further Market Power
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/2014.
=====================================
Another wrinkle in the El Paso/CPUC Complaint case. I've also attached a copy of the El Paso Merchant answer to the FERC enforcement staff motion in case you're interested.
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index
published : November 2, 2001
El Paso Seeks to Derail Further Market Power Investigation
The motion by the enforcement staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a "more complete investigation" of unused capacity on the system of El Paso Natural Gas is "an abuse of process," the pipeline and its merchant energy affiliate claimed Thursday, since it comes after the case has been fully litigated.
In filing a motion to strike the enforcement staff's request for the investigation, El Paso Natural Gas and El Paso Merchant Energy said the staff motion is a violation of their due process rights, since an initial decision in the case was issued three weeks ago (see Daily GPI, Oct. 10 <http://intelligencepress.com/subscribers/daily/news/d20011010c.html>). At that time Chief Administrative Law Judge Curtis Wagner Jr. recommended the dismissal of charges that El Paso and its affiliate exercised market power to drive up prices for gas transported to the border beginning in mid-2000 [RP00-241]. The judge had concluded that the complainants in the case failed to carry their burden of proof that the El Paso companies exercised market power by withholding capacity from the market.
After the parties file briefs on the ALJ's decision, all that remains is a vote by the commissioners, the El Paso companies pointed out.
The investigation sought by the Market Oversight and Enforcement Section (MOE) of the Office of General Counsel "seeks to improperly shift the burden of proof by requiring El Paso and Merchant Energy to prove that they did not withhold capacity. This argument turns the Commission's adjudicatory procedures -- and its procedural safeguards -- on their head," the companies said.
"MOE is attempting to inappropriately influence the decision-making process in this already high profile case," putting the integrity of FERC's adjudicatory process in jeopardy. "The rules under which the complaint is to be judged have become a moving target, El Paso's and Merchant Energy's due process rights and reputation have been harmed, and they have been put in the untenable position of now trying to prove a negative. MOE's improper comments should be disregarded and stricken from the record in this proceeding," the companies said.
MOE said the issue it was raising -- whether El Paso made its unused capacity available to shippers on an IT basis, as required by FERC's open-access rule -- was neither the focus of the hearing last summer nor Wagner's initial decision (see Daily GPI, Nov. 1) <http://intelligencepress.com/subscribers/daily/news/d20011101d.html>..
MOE said its review of the public portion of the hearing record suggests that El Paso may have committed "potential violations" of FERC's Part 284 open-access regulations by withholding IT capacity in an attempt to keep prices up at the California border, but it said there may be "other potential explanations" for the existence of unused capacity on the pipeline. "We recommend a more complete investigation of the reasons why capacity went unused on the pipeline at times during the period [of] November 2000 through March 2001." MOE conceded its motion was an "unusual" move.
It suggested that the Commission either direct MOE to conduct a further probe, remand the decision to Judge Wagner for consideration or use other procedures. Although "this step is unusual, it is not unprecedented for the Commission's enforcement staff to inform the Commission of its views regarding potential violations concerning a pending proceeding," MOE said.
El Paso pointed to a statement by the judge to back up its claim that parties in the proceeding had agreed that the pipeline was full from November through March.
Here is a copy of the El Paso Merchant Energy response summarized above. They used some pretty strong language!!
--------- Inline attachment follows ---------
From: <[email protected]>
To: Cantrell, Rebecca W. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bcantre>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2001 10:33:33 GMT
Subject:
EPNG/EPME's response
=====================================
|
4,232 |
Subject: Re: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28387.
=====================================
YES
From: Jeff Dasovich on 07/06/2001 04:01 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
can we talk about this?
Richard Shapiro
07/06/2001 03:52 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
I Forwarded this one already
From: Jeff Dasovich on 07/06/2001 03:49 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Will do.
Best,
Jeff
David W Delainey@EES
07/06/2001 02:58 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Jeff, I would recommend forwarding these to myself, Lavorato, Dietrich,
Kitchen and Whalley in the future.
Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/EES on 07/06/2001
02:57 PM ---------------------------
Jeremy Blachman
07/06/2001 02:12 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/EES, Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES
cc:
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Think it would be extremely helpful to have Jeff and/or Jim Steffes update us
on Monday. I will set-up if you don't already have something going.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES on 07/06/2001
02:11 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 07/06/2001 01:16 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/Enron@EnronXGate, Donald M Black/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim
Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy
Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Alan
Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mike D
Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Kristin
Walsh/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Hertzberg (speaker of the CA Assembly) called a meeting yesterday afternoon
of the group of market participants that have been negotiating the
"core/noncore" proposal in California. The purpose of the meeting was to
brief us on their activities and their gameplan for trying to find a solution
for California. Here's a summary of the meeting. Please keep confidential.
Work will be done over the weekend to put the core/noncore proposal in
legislative language. (We will be in the room.)
Work done by the "Plan B" group in the Assembly (Joe Dutra and Joe Nation)
will also be put into legislative language over the weekend.
Because no proposal is "comprehensive," a complete legislative package will
be created from the various pieces that have been worked on thus far (i.e.,
core/noncore, "Plan B," Edison MOU)
In addition, there are Republican demands that Hertzberg will need to address
(e.g., end the litigation) in order to achieve bi-partison support, which is
what Hertzberg's shooting for.
To move the legislation, the plan is to establish a "conference committee,"
comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
The committe would begin work on Monday and would attempt to finish putting a
comprehensive bill together, vote it out of the Legislature and send it to
the Governor for signing by Monday, July 16th.
July 16th is the deadline because that is the date that the PUC will issue
its proposed decision regarding, among other things, how DWR's revenue
requirement will be put into rates, whether Direct Access needs to be
suspended, etc.
The PUC is issuing the draft on the 16th in order to give everyone 30 days to
review and comment before the Commission votes on a final order on August
15th. (The PUC will actually issue a "thought piece" on Monday the 9th and
will use reactions to the "thought piece" to craft the develop the proposed
decision it plans to issue on the 16th.)
All of this is still up in the air, however. As of right now, the leader of
the Senate (Burton) has not agreed to Hertzberg's gameplan and the
Republicans, while interested, have not yet committed to join the process.
=====================================
|
4,233 |
Subject: Jeff Byron Joins Enerwise Global Technologies
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12048.
=====================================
I=01,m very excited to have joined a new company (Enerwise Global Technolog=
ies)
and wanted to pass along some information about it. I start next week and
will be in Philadelphia for most of the week getting "oriented." I will ha=
ve
an office in Redwood City where I will be Director of Business Development
for the West Coast. However, I don=01,t have a new email or business phone
number just yet. I will send you all that when I have it.
I=01,ve enjoyed working with you in the past and look forward to continued =
op
portunities to do so.
In the meantime, I can still be reached at:
[email protected]
Home: (650) 961-3115
Personal cell: (415) 999-0825
Regards,
Jeff Byron
For Immediate Release
Contact: Rebecca Filbey
Stanton Communications
202.223.4933
[email protected]
ENERWISE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES
FORMED TO PROVIDE ENERGY INTELLIGENCE SOLUTIONS FOR CORPORATIONS
-- Company Provides Information on Consistency, Quality and Use of Energy -=
-
(Kennett Square, PA) May 1, 2001 =01) Enerwise Global Technologies, a major
provider of enterprise-wide energy intelligence and managed energy services
for domestic and international corporations, today announced the completion
of its spin-off from Conectiv, Inc. Enerwise Global Technologies was forme=
d
with the assets of Conectiv Inc., in conjunction with funding by EnerTech
Capital Partners II L.P. and other leading energy industry venture capital
firms, including CapiTech, Inc., a subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec.
Enerwise Global Technologies addresses the energy intelligence needs of
medium to large enterprises in a broad range of commercial and industrial
(C&I) segments for which managing the consumption, reliability, and cost of
energy is mission critical. By capturing, integrating, analyzing and
monitoring vital energy and operational data for its customer, Enerwise
Global Technologies is able to recommend and implement solutions to improve
facility operations, increase reliability and reduce costs.
"The need for meaningful energy information will continue to rise as energy
supplies remain tight and energy prices prove volatile, and as many
businesses become increasingly aware that the quality and reliability of th=
e
energy they receive can have significant impact on their operations " said
Dom Geraghty, Senior Vice President of Enerwise Global Technologies. "Our
vision is to transform the way businesses understand and make decisions abo=
ut
their energy consumption, thereby enabling them to manage their
energy-related costs while maintaining their up-time objectives."
Three key elements work in harmony to enable and distinguish Enerwise Globa=
l
Technologies from its competitors:
~ Expedient operational tactics combining the efficiency of the centralized=
,
24x7x365, remote-monitoring Information Command Centers (ICCs), with
convenient and secure customer access to up-to-the-minute intelligence via
the Web.
~ Reliable, robust technologies that can be seamlessly integrated into
existing enterprise systems and have been fully proven; in fact, they are
already in place in hundreds of major corporations.
~ Experienced energy management professionals who truly understand the ener=
gy
challenges that customers face, and who can offer real-world solutions to
help them meet those challenges.
- MORE -
"No other resource offers enterprises a more comprehensive energy
intelligence and management solutions set," said Scott Ungerer, Managing
Director of EnerTech Capital Partners. "Enerwise Global Technologies is
immediately in a market-leading position as the only organization whose
solutions have been successfully implemented and are working for hundreds o=
f
demanding- and satisfied- customers."
From its headquarters in Kennett Square, PA, Enerwise Global Technologies
provides energy intelligence and managed energy services for domestic and
international C&I customers, including companies that are leaders of their
industry segments. Formed with assets contributed by Conectiv Inc., Enerwi=
se
Global Technologies has been in business since 1998. Enerwise Global
Technologies formally launched in 2001 with venture capital funding provide=
d
by EnerTech Capital Partners and CapiTech, Inc., a subsidiary of
Hydro-Quebec.
=====================================
|
4,234 |
Subject: More on FERC generator hearings
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28472.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: McEvoy, Bridget [mailto:[email protected]]
BN 18:06 Talks Between California, Generators End; No Accord (Correct)
(Corrects lead to say judge recommended FERC hearings to
result disagreements; adds comments from judge in fifth paragraph
and comments from Enron in 13th paragraph.)
Washington, July 9 (Bloomberg) -- A judge who oversaw two
weeks of unsuccessful negotiations aimed at persuading power
sellers to pay refunds in California and other western states
recommended that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hold
hearings to resolve disagreements within 60 days.
Two weeks of FERC-ordered talks ended today with the two
sides no closer to an accord.
``In 15 days, you can't work miracles,'' said Curtis Wagner,
FERC's chief administrative law judge. ``The numbers were too far
apart.''
California says it is due a refund of $8.9 billion because
the companies charged excessive prices. Other western states are
also requesting money.
A group of power sellers offered $510 million to California
during the negotiations, scoffing at the state's method of
calculating the refund, Wagner said. Other parties to the talks
offered about $206 million, bringing the total offer from
generators to $716 million.
On Saturday, the state brought in analysts who explained how
the state calculated its estimate. He wasn't convinced by
California's arguments that it should receive $8.9 billion, said
Wagner, who wouldn't provide his own estimate of how much should
be paid.
Wagner said FERC should hold hearings of 60 days or less and
should calculate a refund based on a system it approved for price
caps on June 18. The caps are based on the costs of the highest
priced generator during the early stages of a power shortage.
That formula should be applied retroactively to Oct. 1,
Wagner said. He wouldn't provide an estimate of the size of such a
refund, saying it would require research into fuel prices from
that time period.
Michael Kahn, California's chief negotiator, said the judge's
recommendation was a victory for his state. Wagner's formula would
give his state a refund of ``several billion dollars,'' and
California will sue to get the rest, he said.
``The judge said we're entitled to our money without
releasing any of our claims,'' Kahn told reporters.
Generators were mixed on what Wagner's recommendations meant,
though they agreed the state asked for too much.
``Under the faulty methodology the state has come up with (to
justify the $8.9 billion refund), we would be owed money because
we bought more than we sold in the spot market in the period in
question,'' said Mark Palmer, a spokesman for Enron Corp, one of
the power sellers taking part in the negotiations. ``That's shows
how ridiculous this is.''
Houston-based Enron didn't participate in the offer to refund
$510 million, Palmer said, without being more specific.
``Nothing I've seen suggests that California cares about a
settlement,'' Palmer said. ``What they care about is shifting
blame. What they care about is a witch hunt.''
Duke Energy Corp. is ``very pleased'' by the judge's
recommendations, said Brent Bailey, vice president and general
counsel of the Charlotte-based company. The judge's plan fixes
problems with California's methodology for calculating the
refunds, he said.
California's two biggest utilities have piled up almost $14
billion in debt because of the surging prices that resulted when
the state's plan to deregulate its electricity system failed. The
state began buying power on the utilities' behalf in January and
has spent close to $8 billion.
--Amy Strahan Butler and Jeff Bliss in Washington (202) 624-1975
or [email protected] and in Washington/mmw/alp/mmw
Bridget McEvoy
Investor Relations
El Paso Corp.
713.420.5597
[email protected]
******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso
Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender.
******************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,235 |
Subject: PG&E's Auction Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/pg_e_hydro_sale/7.
=====================================
Here is a short summary of PG&E's application. I haven't gone through the
appendices which contain the agreements that would need to be executed as
part of a final bid proposal. There are seven agreements in five volumes.
The following represents PG&E's proposal, unless otherwise designated.
PG&E filed its application and agreements relative to the sale of its
hydro-electric facilities. This represents nearly 4,000 MW of generating
capacity at a net book value of $1.3 billion (as of 12/31/98). This proposal
excludes the 1,000 MW of generating capacity owned by public agencies under
contract to PG&E. PG&E will submit testimony and a proponent's environmental
assessment (PEA) within 30 days.
The auction will be held in two-stages. The first stage is a Request for
Qualifications. The second will be a binding bid process. PG&E hopes to
complete selection of a winning bidder within 21 weeks, after Commission
approval of its plan. After valuation, the assets will no longer be subject
to Commission jurisdiction, regulation. The sale is contingent upon CPUC
approval of contract terms acceptable to PG&E and approval by FERC of the
license transfer. PG&E also proposes that the RMR contracts be transferred
with the generation assets. (I would assume ISO/FERC need to approve that as
well.) PG&E has also retained exclusive right to reject any bid or all bids
and to terminate the sale of any facility, at its sole discretion.
PG&E proposes to auction its assets by watershed (of which there are five
watershed areas) or in bundles within a watershed (of which there are 20).
This makes 25 possible bid packages. PG&E also states that it is receptive
to other packages, including run-of-river. The winner will be selected based
on price alone. PG&E Gen will be able to bid under the same terms and
conditions as others with the following exceptions:
1. PG&E Gen's bid will reflect the benefit to consumers of avoided capital
gains tax. PG&E's application states that PG&E Gen will then have an
offsetting increase in income tax as a result of a reduced tax basis. It is
not explicit as to how those offsetting affects will be reflected. This
treatment would be commensurate with the tax advantage provided to municipal
bidders, who have the benefit of tax-exempt financing.
2. PG&E Gen would be exempt from entering into a 2-year O&M agreement with
PG&E, as the sale to the affiliate will be essentially a spin-off. PG&E Gen
would give preferential treatment to existing PG&E employees. (We are
looking into the statute language to see if this is a correct interpretation.)
PG&E is also maintaining certain T&D facilities for reliability purposes.
PG&E will also require an "islanding agreement" where certain generators will
provide energy to PG&E during transmission outages. PG&E states that "to the
extent the islanding agreement conflicts with the mandatory buy-sell
requirement in the preferred policy decision, PG&E requests the Commission to
waive that requirement." (This raises an interesting question: outside of
those islanding agreement, does PG&E envision the mandatory buy/sell
requirement would transfer to the new owners of generation?)
Some of the issues/questions that are not explicit are:
1. The timing of the credit against CTCs. I'm assuming it occurs only upon
close of sale and after requisite regulatory approvals. This means interim
valuation will still be important.
2. The interaction, if any, between a Proponents Environmental Assessment
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review?
3. The consolidation of PG&E's proposal into the Commission's valuation
proceeding.
4. The issues relative to market power, environmental, etc. is not
addressed. While the auction might indicate a natural mitigation of market
power if the assets are sold in bundles, if the bid for the system is larger
than the accumulation of individual bids, this would allow for a total system
sale. A quote in CEM from Steve Peace said that if the Commission tries to
incorporate other issues into the sale, the hydro issue will probably just
end up back in Sacramento.
Any questions or comments on PG&E's proposal, feel free to contact me.
=====================================
|
4,236 |
Subject: Get The Wall Street Journal on Schwab
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11620.
=====================================
****************************************************************
GET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, COMPLIMENTS OF CHARLES SCHWAB
Consolidate your assets at Schwab by September 30 and
receive The Wall Street Journal for up to 12 months.
To get started, go to:
http://schwab.ed10.net/ud/3MOW/IE1M/3CK1/GX/QF3OEC?sa=983228445
****************************************************************
Today, more than ever, it's important to have a complete
investment strategy that includes all your goals.
At Schwab, we're here to help. Our Investment Specialists are on
hand to assist you in developing and following a comprehensive
investment strategy that meets your short and long-term goals.
We can also provide objective advice, recommendations and
answers to your specific investing questions.
Enjoy Convenience and Control
For greater convenience and even more control over your
finances, we encourage you to consider consolidating your assets
at Schwab. By consolidating your investments, you can receive
easy access to your portfolio, streamlined statements to keep
you updated on all your holdings, online quarterly performance
profiles and more.
Receive The Wall Street Journal
And, as a valued Schwab Signature Services(TM) client, for a
limited time, you'll receive a special offer: a complimentary
six-month subscription to The Wall Street Journal when you
deposit or transfer $50,000 to Schwab, and a 12-month
subscription when you deposit or transfer $100,000.
Our Investment Specialists would be glad to discuss the benefits
of consolidation further and answer any questions you might have
about your portfolio, the market or the specialized resources
that are available to you as a Signature Services client. Call
us today at 1-866-246-8371 to schedule a free consultation by
phone or in a branch near you.
To send for our free consolidation offer package, go to:
http://schwab.ed10.net/ud/3MOW/EKNA/3CK1/MQ/QF3OEC?sa=983228445
This offer expires September 30, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------
By accepting the consolidation offer, customers are providing
their information to Dow Jones & Co., Inc. The Wall Street
Journal is a registered trademark of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., is not affiliated with Dow Jones
& Co., Inc., or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. Any
use of this information by Dow Jones & Co., Inc., is not
governed by Schwab's privacy policy. Please allow four to six
weeks from the time Schwab receives your transfer/deposit forms
to receive your first Wall Street Journal paper. Offer does not
include IRA and Schwab Institutional(R) accounts. Offer not
transferable and not valid in conjunction with any other offer.
Domestic customers only. Schwab reserves the right to
discontinue this offer. If you work at Schwab, Dow Jones & Co.,
Inc., another financial institution, broker-dealer or exchange
or news or financial information media company, you are not
eligible for this offer. Deposits must be new to Schwab, and
must remain in account for at least 180 days. Other
restrictions may apply. All transfer/deposit forms must be
postmarked by September 30, 2001, to receive this offer.
Access to electronic services may be limited or unavailable
during periods of peak demand, market volatility, systems
upgrade, maintenance, or for other reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------
We respect your privacy. To minimize your receipt of duplicate
information and for internal recordkeeping purposes, Schwab may
track your responses, if any, to this offer. You can read more
about the Schwab privacy policy at:
http://schwab.ed10.net/ud/3MOW/A5SC/3CK1/AZ/QF3OEC
If you would prefer to receive only account service emails,
please reply to this email indicating your preference. Please
note: doing so will not remove you from any SchwabAlerts(R) or
email newsletters or information to which you have actively
subscribed.
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab
corporate email system may be retained, monitored and/or
reviewed by Schwab personnel.
(C)2001 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
Member SIPC/NYSE. CRS 13091 (0701-11893)
[IMAGE]
=====================================
|
4,237 |
Subject: RE:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1987.
=====================================
You didnt send this to SoCalGas, on purpose obviously. What are we going to
do if we get way out ahead of them early on in this process? Shouldn't re
reconnoiter with Bilas first? Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 10:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Paul_Amirault%[email protected];
[email protected]; Tom Beach
Subject: Re:
Folks. Let me throw out a proposal. I believe that we should immediately
draft a very brief letter or press release that explains why the PD is
misguided and will lead to very bad energy policy for the state, and why
our settlement is the right one and why it's good energy policy for the
state. The letter should be signed by everyone who signed the settlement.
It needs to be released by the end of this week. Absent this kind of
action, nothing's going to turn this thing around. Spending time and money
writing "comments" will be a waste of time and money. We'll need to do a
lot more, but I think we have to start this way or fold up our tents now.
Thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
Colin.Cushnie
@sce.com To: "Tom Beach"
<[email protected]>
cc: [email protected],
[email protected],
11/27/2000 [email protected],
[email protected],
08:54 PM [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
Paul_Amirault%[email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re:
I haven't had the opportunity to read the PD yet, but I share your
frustration with the Commission's inaction in the face of significant and
fast moving events. Our settlement and electric restructuring are clearly
distinguishable. Arguably, the status quo has, in part, perpetuated the
record high prices being observed of late. The Commission should have
little to fear by proceeding with its initial direction of statewide
consistency in the intrastate gas industry.
"Tom Beach"
<tomb@crossbordere To: "Mike Day"
<[email protected]>,
nergy.com> <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
11/27/2000 03:19 <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
PM <Paul_Amirault%[email protected]>,
Please respond to <[email protected]>
"Tom Beach" cc: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re:
If I'm reading pages 38 - 40 of the Bilas PD correctly, the Commission's
primary concern over the competitive benefits of city-gate pricing is the
fact that PG&E city-gate prices in October were much higher than border
prices plus transportation. October bidweek PG&E city-gate prices were
high, but only because southern California prices plummeted from the high
levels that they had reached in late August and September, following the El
Paso explosion. In November, the PG&E city-gate moved back into its normal
relationship with Topock and Malin prices. For the Commission to be
spooked
by one month of price fluctuations is crazy.
I'm hopeful that my friends at Edison, in particular, can help the
Commission to distinguish what we were trying to achieve in the CS on the
gas side from the mess that is electric restructuring....
Tom Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <Paul_Amirault%[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:27 PM
> The PD in the Gas Restructuring is out. I have yet to read the whole
> thing, but the title "Approval With Modifications Of The Interim
> Settlement..." does not bode well. According to Steve Watson (and I only
> have Steve's statement second hand), the decision reflects a fear that
the
> timing is wrong in light of the current volatile gas price market.
>
> (See attached file: Proposed.doc)
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>
=====================================
|
4,238 |
Subject: Article
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11796.
=====================================
Please forward to Bev. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 06/26/2001 11:21 AM -----
Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate
06/26/2001 07:34 AM
To: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate, Lisa Mellencamp/ENRON@enronXgate,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Article
Much Calif Power Price Gouging Beyond FERC's Reach -ISO
Updated: Monday, June 25, 2001 06:59 PM ET Email this article to a friend!
Printer-friendly version
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--Federal energy regulators only have the authority to
order refunds for about a third of the $9 billion California Gov. Gray Davis
claims energy companies have overcharged the state in the 12 months to May
2001, documents from the state's wholesale market operator show.
Of the total, $2.9 billion came from the May-September period the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has said it can't act on, and $2.8 billion from
the October-May period is attributable to municipal utilities over which FERC
lacks jurisdiction, according to documents from the California Independent
System Operator.
That leaves just $3.3 billion in alleged overcharges that FERC could
potentially order refunded - far less than the $9 billion Davis seeks.
Talks between generators and state officials to settle billions of dollars in
unpaid bills and issues of overcharging began Monday. Curtis Wagner, the FERC
administrative law judge presiding over the talks, has said California will
likely see refunds from generators, but far less than the $9 billion Davis
expects.
Davis said Sunday California is going to Washington, D.C., "with one goal,
and that is to bring back $9 billion."
Nearly half that amount is attributable to municipal utilities, the ISO
documents show. The ISO said the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
for example, overcharged California $75 million between May and October.
David Freeman, the governor's chief energy adviser and the former general
manager of the LADWP, said the agency didn't overcharge the state, but
conceded it profited by selling spare power to the ISO.
Davis adviser Nancy McFadden said the state needs FERC to lay the groundwork
for the state to seek refunds from public utilities by ordering refunds from
corporate energy suppliers.
But during a conference call Sunday with reporters, McFadden and Davis press
secretary Steve Maviglio couldn't explain how the governor would go about
getting refunds from companies whose wholesale power prices aren't regulated
by FERC.
Davis testified before the U.S. Congress last week that generators
overcharged the state $9 billion and that FERC should order the refunds.
State Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, has asked for an investigation
into Davis's testimony, saying the figures were based on "shaky
calculations."
To come up with its conclusions, the ISO compared hourly market prices
received by sellers to an estimate of market prices that could have been
expected under competitive market conditions.
The ISO established a benchmark for what it determined was competitive - at
times about $125 per megawatt-hour to $200/MWh, a fraction of actual prices
in the market - based on the cost of natural gas and compliance with
air-quality rules.
The ISO, however, typically used the price of gas at California's northern
border, according to the documents. Generators paid a higher price for the
fuel in Southern California, raising the cost of making electricity.
The ISO also used reports of earnings by the state's "Big Five" power
suppliers during 2000 - earnings that for some quadrupled - to draw the
conclusion that generators overcharged the state, according to the documents.
The ISO attributed high power prices in part to the state's three largest
utilities' failure to buy the power they needed in advance, leaving the grid
operator to pick up the shortfall at the last minute, according to the
documents.
The ISO alleges the following companies overcharged the state by the listed
amounts between May 2000 and February:
=====================================
|
4,239 |
Subject: RE: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3121.
=====================================
Ok, we're on for 7 pm. i've got carolyn's and Mark's #s please pass along
others and i'll originate the call from here.
mark, all of your points are good one's, less discuss them on teh call.
best,
jeff
"Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]>
02/07/2001 12:25 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected], Mark Guinney <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: RE: HD Case: Proposed Plan
I like your ideas - much better developed than in the draft memo. I'm free
at 7pm. My home number is 285-7385. Just patch me in.
- cv
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:26 AM
To: Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark Guinney;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Hi folks:
Since we have only one page, the write up for number 4 will have to be very
brief. Before writing it, though, I wanted to offer a few bullets
regarding what angle we might take, and let folks respond, comment,
counter, etc. before writing it up. I'll clean and beef up once we've
agreed to the approach we'd like to take to question #4. Finally, I can
work from my office on this this evening, which means that I can use the
conference call capability of my office phone to patch everyone in if we'd
like to do a conference call. If that's what folks would like to do, I'd
prefer to do the call at around 7 PM. Just let me know.
Best,
Jeff
The question for #4 is:
Stock price is down 23%, significant debt has already been tapped to
support massive growth and covenants on that debt restrict taking on a lot
more debt.
What should HD do w.r.t. current operations and future growth strategy?
In the near term focus less on growth and more on getting margins and
EBIT growth back in line with results from previous years. (Management's
Letter to Shareholders alludes to this, but it's difficult to determine
whether management is just paying lip service to the need to capitalize on
the growth spurt and grown earnings, or continue on the growth effort.)
With respect to funding future (more moderate growth), the company
does have some room to increase long-term debt (e.g., current ratio for
1986 = 2.26). It seems that HD would get better terms and have increased
flexibility by issuing additional debt rather than relying on lines of
credit. As such, HD ought to look those sources of funding and fill in any
"funding gaps" with funds from the line of credit.
Given the significant drop in stock price, HD is likely better off in
the near term 1) moderating growth, 2) improving performance to generate
cash internally, and 3) using long-term debt issuance to provide the funds
needed. Once performance and stock price improves, then HD should consider
a stock issuance.
How can company improve operating performance?
Reduce selling, store operating expenses and pre-opening expenses
Improve receivables turnover
Improve inventory turnover
Improve per store/sales
Consider closing poor-performing stores
All of which will improve margins
Should company change its strategy? If so how?
Shift from meteoric growth to moderate, targeted growth, and focus on
generating positive cash flow from operations
Focus on improving performance at existing stores; specifically focus on
controlling costs and asset turnover and productivity
Consider another debt issuance rather than rely extensively on credit
line in order to decrease cost of funds and increase flexibility
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=====================================
|
4,240 |
Subject: NYTimes.com Article: California Returns to the Edge of an Emergency
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3576.
=====================================
This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by Dana Perino [email protected].
Jeff Dasovich
Hi, Jeff -- Just saw this and wanted to send it up to you...
Dana Perino
[email protected]
/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\
LOOKING FOR A TRULY HIGH-SPEED INTERNET EXPERIENCE?
Then visit Alcatel.com and see what makes us the
world's leading supplier of DSL solutions.
Alcatel, world leader in DSL solutions.
http://www.nytimes.com/ads/email/alcatel/index.html
\----------------------------------------------------------/
California Returns to the Edge of an Emergency on Electricity
http://partners.nytimes.com/2000/11/17/national/17POWE.html
November 17, 2000
By BARBARA WHITAKER
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 16 California got a cold dose of reality this
week as temperatures dropped to unseasonably low levels, resulting
in warnings about possible electricity blackouts ahead and
reminders that steep increases in natural gas prices might be
coming.
For three days running, the state's Independent System Operator,
the agency that oversees the high-voltage power grid serving 75
percent of the state, declared Stage 2 Electrical Emergencies as
reserves dropped to less than 5 percent on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday. If reserves fall below 1.5 percent, a Stage 3 emergency
is declared and rotating blackouts are possible.
Officials said late Wednesday that they hoped a warming trend
would ease the situation. Only a Stage 1 emergency, which calls for
voluntary energy conservation, was established from 4 to 10 p.m.
While much of the problem developed because generators had been
taken out of operation for maintenance, a spokeswoman for the
Independent System Operator, said it highlighted how strapped the
state had become for electricity.
"The growth in California and the demand for electricity has
really caught up with reality," said Lorie O'Donley, a public
information officer for the agency. "We're operating with a pretty
slim reserve most days."
California, which has been at the forefront of deregulation of the
electric industry, has come under scrutiny after electricity
supplies dropped to critical levels this past summer and electric
bills in San Diego more than doubled.
"In the summer we had some problems because of high demand with
air conditioners and the like," Ms. O'Donley said. "But we've
gotten to the point where the supply and demand equation is so
close we may be seeing more problems throughout the year."
The current shortage worsened when the amount of power expected to
be imported from the Northwest was cut by a third on Wednesday
because the power was needed in Washington and Oregon, which were
experiencing cold weather.
The move highlighted another growing problem, Ms. O'Donley said.
"Energy has become a regional issue," she said. "We really have for
many years counted on getting imports from the Pacific Northwest."
During the summer, those states provide electricity for
California, and the state returns the favor during winter. But
development of power supplies has lagged behind the rapid growth on
the West Coast, leaving utility companies scrambling to serve their
customers.
In addition to advisories about shortages, officials with the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which serves 13 million people in
Northern and Central California, urged consumers to conserve energy
during the current cold snap as natural gas prices are expected to
be about 50 percent higher this year.
The New York Times on the Web
http://www.nytimes.com
/-----------------------------------------------------------------\
Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.
Become a member today! It's free!
http://www.nytimes.com?eta
\-----------------------------------------------------------------/
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
Racer at [email protected] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[email protected].
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
=====================================
|
4,241 |
Subject: FW: PUC and Edison Settle Federal Litigation to Maintain Utility
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/437.
=====================================
MEDIA CONTACT: Terrie Prosper October 2, 2001 CPUC: 118
415-703-1366 [email protected]
PUC AND EDISON SETTLE FEDERAL LITIGATION TO MAINTAIN UTILITY SERVICE WITHOUT RAISING RATES
The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Southern California Edison (Edison) today reached a settlement in the Filed Rate Doctrine lawsuit Edison filed in federal court against the PUC. The settlement is intended to restore Edison to creditworthiness so that it is able to resume procuring the electricity needed by its customers; limit ratepayers' costs of paying off the debt; and maintain the state's role in regulating the investor owned utility by enabling Edison to pay down its back debts over a reasonable, certain period of time. The terms of the Settlement Agreement include:
? Edison will apply cash on hand, plus all of its revenue over recoverable costs, to paying off its back debt. The PUC and Edison have agreed that the amount of the back debt to be recovered from ratepayers is the amount of certain outstanding debt Edison had at August 31, 2001, less the cash on hand on that date, less an additional $300 million adjustment. The amount that will be paid down pursuant to the settlement agreement is estimated to be $3 billion as of the end of this month. The parties believe that the amount to be paid by ratepayers will be much less than the cap.
? Edison will not pay any dividends on its common stock through 2003, or on the full payment of its debt, if sooner. If Edison has not fully paid its back debt by the end of 2003, the Commission retains the discretion to determine whether Edison will pay a dividend in 2004. Edison is free to resume paying dividends in 2005. Since Edison's annual dividend has typically been about $400 million, Edison's shareholders will have forgone at least $1.2 billion in dividends and possibly more, in addition to the $300 million adjustment.
? Edison will apply 100% of any recovery it obtains from refund proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or litigation against sellers to pay down the back debt. Edison commits through court order to work with the PUC and the Attorney General in pursuing litigation against the energy sellers.
? The PUC can direct Edison to use $150 million each year for other utility purposes, including the provision of additional energy efficiency monies, which would otherwise be used to pay down the Edison debt.
? The PUC agrees not to lower Edison's retail rates below their current level through the end of 2003 unless the back debts are recovered. However, rates may be reduced as a result of a securitization of the debt or reduced DWR revenue needs.
? The PUC agrees to set rates not higher than the current rate, to enable Edison to recover the remaining amount of the back debt over 2004 and 2005 if Edison's back debt has not been recovered by the end of 2003.
? There are no concessions of PUC or State regulations or regulatory authority over Edison, nor is there any deregulation of valuable transmission and generation facilities.
? Edison may make up to $900 million in capital expenditures annually.
"This settlement embodies a fair and judicious way for Edison to become solvent and get back in the business of buying power, while meeting the needs of ratepayers and the state of California," said Loretta Lynch, President of the PUC. "The settlement also ensures that all of the benefits of any refunds arising through litigation against power generators and marketers that profited from unjust and unreasonable energy prices will benefit ratepayers."
This agreement settles a November 2000 federal court lawsuit filed by Edison against the PUC, in which Edison claimed that the Commission's actions in not providing sufficient retail rates, violated federal law and was an unconstitutional taking of its property. Under this agreement, Edison will release the PUC from all claims in its lawsuit and will also withdraw any challenges to the Commission's decisions implementing AB 1X, AB 6X, and the TURN accounting proposal.
# # #
=====================================
|
4,242 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/1142.
=====================================
Folks. Let me throw out a proposal. I believe that we should immediately
draft a very brief letter or press release that explains why the PD is
misguided and will lead to very bad energy policy for the state, and why our
settlement is the right one and why it's good energy policy for the state.
The letter should be signed by everyone who signed the settlement. It needs
to be released by the end of this week. Absent this kind of action,
nothing's going to turn this thing around. Spending time and money writing
"comments" will be a waste of time and money. We'll need to do a lot more,
but I think we have to start this way or fold up our tents now. Thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
[email protected]
11/27/2000 08:54 PM
To: "Tom Beach" <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
Paul_Amirault%[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re:
I haven't had the opportunity to read the PD yet, but I share your
frustration with the Commission's inaction in the face of significant and
fast moving events. Our settlement and electric restructuring are clearly
distinguishable. Arguably, the status quo has, in part, perpetuated the
record high prices being observed of late. The Commission should have
little to fear by proceeding with its initial direction of statewide
consistency in the intrastate gas industry.
"Tom
Beach"
<tomb@crossbordere To: "Mike Day"
<[email protected]>,
nergy.com> <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
11/27/2000 03:19 <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
PM
<Paul_Amirault%[email protected]>,
Please respond to
<[email protected]>
"Tom Beach" cc: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Re:
If I'm reading pages 38 - 40 of the Bilas PD correctly, the Commission's
primary concern over the competitive benefits of city-gate pricing is the
fact that PG&E city-gate prices in October were much higher than border
prices plus transportation. October bidweek PG&E city-gate prices were
high, but only because southern California prices plummeted from the high
levels that they had reached in late August and September, following the El
Paso explosion. In November, the PG&E city-gate moved back into its normal
relationship with Topock and Malin prices. For the Commission to be
spooked
by one month of price fluctuations is crazy.
I'm hopeful that my friends at Edison, in particular, can help the
Commission to distinguish what we were trying to achieve in the CS on the
gas side from the mess that is electric restructuring....
Tom Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <Paul_Amirault%[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:27 PM
> The PD in the Gas Restructuring is out. I have yet to read the whole
> thing, but the title "Approval With Modifications Of The Interim
> Settlement..." does not bode well. According to Steve Watson (and I only
> have Steve's statement second hand), the decision reflects a fear that
the
> timing is wrong in light of the current volatile gas price market.
>
> (See attached file: Proposed.doc)
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>
=====================================
|
4,243 |
Subject: Dan Walters: Blame game over California's energy crisis will
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/479.
=====================================
Dan Walters: Blame game over California's energy crisis will continue for years
(Published July 24, 2001)
The wrestling match between politicians and Enron Corp. moved into a more intense arena over the weekend when a state Senate investigating committee sought contempt penalties because the huge energy company has refused to turn over internal documents.
Although Houston-based Enron owns no major power plants in California, it has adopted the toughest stance of all energy companies against the multiple investigations of why wholesale energy prices spiked so high. And it has become, in turn, a whipping boy for California politicians.
At one point last spring, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he wanted criminal charges against Enron and its chairman, Kenneth Lay. "I would love to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey,' " Lockyer said. With less colorful language, Gov. Gray Davis has often castigated Texas-based companies as price gougers -- even though Texas firms have been fairly minor suppliers to California.
Some of it is just buzzword politics. Lockyer and Davis know that Californians dislike anything associated with Texas, and Lay has been one of President Bush's major political supporters. Enron, meanwhile, cites the rhetoric as evidence that Lockyer, Davis and legislative investigators are interested less in finding the truth than in seeking scapegoats. Enron also filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Senate's subpoenas of trading data.
Most other energy companies have complied with the demands, creating Sacramento repositories of the data under elaborate confidentiality agreements worked out with the special Senate committee headed by Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Santa Ana. But Enron has refused, and on Saturday, Dunn submitted a report asking the Senate for "an appropriate coercive sanction."
Does Enron have something to hide? Or does it sincerely believe that what's happening in California is political scapegoating? Are the companies' fears about the confidentiality of the data sought by the Senate justified? Would data be selectively leaked to show the firms in the worst light? Would data be used by competitors? Or could the information find its way into the hands of class-action attorneys?
Dunn, a prominent trial attorney himself, insists that confidentiality will be protected and that the information being sought is only for legislative purposes. But Enron and the other companies have some reason to be wary of turning over confidential information to politicians. Similar information was leaked -- without penalty -- in last year's investigation of former state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush. And there are indications that private lawyers are working closely with investigators.
Mike Aguirre, the San Diego attorney seeking a "smoking gun" to prove collusion among energy companies, supplied Dunn's committee with a few dissident Duke Energy workers who alleged, in highly publicized hearings, that the firm had manipulated production at its San Diego plant to create artificial shortages and drive up spot market power prices. Duke then refuted the charges by releasing some excerpts from the records of the Independent System Operator, the controller of California's power grid, indicating that ISO had ordered the plant operational changes.
Aguirre subsequently asked the governor's office to pressure the ISO -- now under Davis' direct control -- to release all of the Duke-related documents that would show, he says, that the firm actually manipulated the situation. Duke and other companies insist that the ISO-held documents are proprietary. Aguirre pleaded with one Davis adviser in an e-mail that "we need your help in properly getting this information out." But Aguirre, in an interview, said he had not yet obtained cooperation from Davis aides.
The political and legal struggle to affix blame for California's energy woes will continue for months, perhaps years. The crisis will cost ratepayers at least $50 billion, and they'll want to know why as they make out their utility bill checks.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
=====================================
|
4,244 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #42
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/85.
=====================================
<<IPW091001.doc>>
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
Also note that today and tomorrow (9/10 and 9/11), 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 service providers, to the power producers themselves.
The major power generators are scheduled to speak on Tuesday morning (9/11).
Between 9.25 am - 11.50 am presentations will be given by the following
companies: Aquila, Calpine, Mirant, NRG Energy, Orion Power, Reliant
Resources and TECO Energy.
In addition, at 8 am on Tuesday there will be a panel discussion focusing on
the state of the generation market.
Finally, at 12 pm on Tuesday Judah Rose a power market consultant with ICF
Consulting will offer his perspectives on the outlook for the sector during
a luncheon presentation.
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 3.7% Last week our IPP composite declined 3.7%, outperforming
both the NASDAQ (-6.5%) and the S&P 500 (-4.2%). Shaw Group, which was up
14.4%, was the strongest performer in the group. AES Corp was the weakest
performer, falling 10.7%.
2. Awaiting a Bottom We attribute last week's stock price performance to
broader market concerns regarding the health of the macro economy and its
ability to recover by the end of 2001. Our sense is that investors
recognize that IPP valuations are extremely attractive. However, prior to
moving aggressively back into the sector, they await some indication that
stock prices have stabilized and a bottom has indeed been achieved.
3. Shell Terminates Contract with CPN; Concerns Unwarranted Following its
exit from the retail marketing business, Shell terminated a 5 year 3,000 MW
requirements contract with Calpine. We believe some investors concluded
that this announcement had negative implication for CPN's earnings outlook
and its overall hedging strategy. In our view these concerns are
unwarranted for 4 reasons: 1. The Shell contract was unusual; 2. There is no
earnings impact; 3. Remarketing the output will not be an issue; and, 4. The
status of CPN's hedging objectives is unaffected.
4. Legal and Administrative Issues Remain for California Windfall Profits
Tax Bills Recently, two bills that would impose a windfall profits tax on
California generators have been advancing through the California legislature
and will likely by heard on the floor of the Assembly this week. The
current legislative session will end this Friday (9/14), requiring any
pending bills to be passed by that time. In our view these bills are best
understood as a negotiating tactic by Governor Gray Davis and Democrats in
the legislature designed to extract additional concession from the FERC and
the state's power generators. While we expect at least one or both of these
bills to advance through the legislative process, full implementation is
likely to be prevented by a number of legal and administrative impediments.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
=====================================
|
4,245 |
Subject: Figures show state lost big on extra power
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/480.
=====================================
FYI. Many similar stories in the major papers today.
Best,
Jeff
Figures show state lost big on extra power
Posted at 9:53 p.m. PDT Monday, July 23, 2001
BY JOHN WOOLFOLK
Mercury News
State figures show California may have lost about $14 million this month selling surplus electricity for less than it cost.
The Mercury News disclosed last week that some power was being sold at a loss. But the new figures provide the first indication of just how much excess power the state bought in its desperate effort to avoid blackouts -- and how cheaply some of that power was sold when it turned out not to be needed.
A Republican lawmaker said Monday the loss also shows Democratic Gov. Gray Davis' energy policies are needlessly costing consumers.
``This whole thing is a mess,'' said Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine, who requested details of the state's surplus power sales. ``The government needs to get out of the power business before it costs Californians even more money.''
A state spokesman didn't dispute the $14 million figure outright but said it is an approximation based on average prices and that the actual loss probably is less.
``It's a number I'm sure he likes very much, but it's definitely an estimated number, and it could be far lower,'' said Oscar Hidalgo, spokesman for the state Department of Water Resources.
Campbell responded that the loss also could be higher.
The state has spent $415 million on power so far this month.
State officials last week confirmed that cool weather and consumer conservation have left California holding more power than it needs. The revelation was a stunning turnaround for a state that months ago was paying top dollar for power, expecting shortages this summer.
Price that was paid
The state bought 3.5 million megawatt-hours of electricity for July at an average price of $118 per megawatt-hour, according to a response Friday by the Department of Water Resources to Campbell's inquiry. The state has sold 178,000 surplus megawatt-hours in July at an average price of $37, the department said.
Based on those average prices, the state paid $21 million for the surplus power, which it sold for $6.5 million -- $14.5 million less than it cost.
A more precise calculation of the state's loss is difficult because purchased power is acquired at different times and prices and pooled as a ``portfolio.''
Purchases included long-term contracts that averaged $138 per megawatt-hour as well as cheaper spot-market buys.
State officials last week said they were selling surplus at $15 to $30 a megawatt-hour, while some traders cited unconfirmed sales as low as $1.
Hidalgo noted that the surplus sales represent just 5 percent of California's July purchases, which totaled $415 million. The $6.5 million from sales will help lower the state's power bill, he said, adding that utilities routinely sell some extra electricity.
``Despite the fact that we're in somewhat of a surplus, any power-buying operation in the world is going to have to plan for these types of situations,'' Hidalgo said. ``It's not unique, and in fact it's normal operating procedure for any utility.''
Other Western utilities, including Portland General Electric in Oregon, have said they, too, are selling some surplus power at a loss and describe it as a cost of doing business.
The suppliers buying the state's surplus electricity on the cheap include the big out-of-state energy companies that the governor has called price-gouging ``snakes.'' Among them are Duke Energy, Dynegy Power and Marketing, El Paso Power Services, Mirant, Reliant Energy and Williams Energy.
`Best bid' taken
Hidalgo said the state took the best offers it could find.
``It's only reasonable to get the best bid you can,'' he said.
Campbell said the $14 million loss is troubling because ratepayers or taxpayers will have to cover the cost, whereas a private utility could be forced to eat the expense if regulators determined it was unreasonable.
State officials say what's more important is that the overall cost of power is dropping, from an average daily tab of $64 million in May to $25 million this month, in part because the state has so much power.
Contact John Woolfolk at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or (408) 278-3410.
=====================================
|
4,246 |
Subject: RE: Angelides Trying to Turn Up Heat on Loretta
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/340.
=====================================
It's hardball time. I'd be careful going up against UC/CSU, though.
-----Original Message-----
From: MDay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 4:43 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Angelides Trying to Turn Up Heat on Loretta
He suggested the state could cut all funding for UC and CSU???!!!. Just
because they like direct access? The man is insane.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Angelides Trying to Turn Up Heat on Loretta
> Calif. power bond delay may lead to large deficit
> NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - California state Treasurer Philip
> Angelides said Thursday the state could face a $9.3 billion budget
> deficit in the 2002-2003 fiscal year if $12.5 billion of power bonds
> are not sold before July 2002.
> The treasurer is certain the bonds will be sold, but he released the
> figures in an attempt to pressure the California Public Utilities
> Commission (PUC) into actions it must take in order to sell the bonds.
>
> "What I am concerned about is the fact this law has not been
> effectuated eight months after it was passed," Angelides said in a
> telephone news conference in Sacramento, referring to a law passed in
> February setting the biggest municipal bond sale ever in motion.
> The state depleted its general fund by at least $6.2 billion buying
> electricity to keep power flowing and must sell the bonds in order to
> refill the state's general fund and make future power purchases.
> "There can be no schedule (for the bond sale) until the PUC completes
> its work," Angelides said.
> Earlier this week the PUC said the much-delayed meeting is now set for
> Oct. 2.
> Angelides said PUC Commissioner Jeff Brown, one of five, is on board
> to make the vote, but President Loretta Lynch and other commissioners,
> "are not ready to act."
> Lynch said earlier this week that she wants more time to work out
> details with Angelides and the Department of Water Resources
> concerning the money and terms of the rate order and rate agreement.
> How the money from rate increases approved in May will be split up to
> pay for the bonds and to reimburse troubled power utilities and giving
> the Department of Water Resources the authority to sell the bonds,
> still need to be decided by the PUC.
> Angelides is projecting a $3.1 billion budget deficit for the
> 2002-2003 fiscal year, even if the bonds are sold in time, due to
> reduced revenues as the overall U.S. economy slows.
> In a worst case scenario, Angelides added that with the bond sale, the
> $3.1 billion gap may grow to $4 billion, while a late sale would push
> the $9.3 billion number to $10.2 billion.
> The treasurer painted a dire picture of California 's budget if the
> bonds are not sold, likening it to the state's budget problems of the
> early 1990s.
> Angelides warned a 2 percent sales tax increase might have to be put
> in place, or possibly a $1,574 per student cut in state K-12 education
> spending.
> Or, the state could drop all spending on the University of California
> and California State University and save $6 billion.
> Eighteen percent of the state's non-education budget would need to be
> cut if the bonds are not sold, he said.
>
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,247 |
Subject: RE: AReM/WPTF Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12383.
=====================================
Robert,
We should talk to Mike Day about it -- we need to preserve our rights for
future litigation, but perhaps we only need to file for rehearing to do
that. I'll give Mike a call.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate
06/22/2001 07:49 AM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: RE: AReM/WPTF Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and
Direct Access
Given the negativity toward Enron at the CPUC, should we not file comments if
these express our position?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 9:47 AM
To: Williams, Robert C.
Cc: Kean, Steven; Dasovich, Jeff; Steffes, James; Kingerski, Harry; Sharp,
Vicki; Curry, Wanda; Kaufman, Paul
Subject: AReM/WPTF Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and Direct
Access
Dan Douglass has drafted joint comments for two coalitions in which Enron is
a member -- Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and Western Power Trading
Forum. Robert, feel free to contact Dan directly with your comments. Let me
know your thoughts as well. I am out of the office at a WPTF meeting. Dan is
here as well. If you need to contact me, you can leave me a message on my
office phone or try my cell (415 -- 902-4108), but I'm not sure the cell is
working all the time.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 07:35 AM -----
"Dan Douglass" <[email protected]> 06/20/2001 10:59 PM To: "ARM"
<[email protected]> cc: Subject: Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX
Credit and Direct Access
Attached for your review and comment is my first draft of comments to be
filed on Monday with regard to the draft decisions of ALJ Barnett and
Commissioner Bilas. Please review it carefully, as I have thrown in
everything I can think of on a rush basis, and it may require some
significant editing. Pay particular attention to Section V dealing with
Bilas' request for parties to discuss alternatives to DA suspension. The
draft offers a compromise to the DWR's concerns, as expressed in the
Angelides memo. Also, notice that Section VI urges the Commission to
bifurcate the DA and PX credit issues, acting quickly on the first, if it
must, but more leisurely on the PX credit subject.
Finally, I have a suggestion in the form of a question. How would AReM
members feel about making this a joint filing with WPTF? There is
cross-membership between the two groups and the same issues would be raised
in the separate filings which I am otherwise prepared to draft. This draft
would requires some modifications so as to refer to the "Joint Parties" as
opposed to solely mentioning AReM, and I might add a section dealing more
explicitly with WPTF's contribution to getting the zero minimum bill
stipulation signed in the first place. Otherwise, the document would stay
much as it is (subject to your input over the next few days, of course).
Please let me know what you think asap, as I am already working on a WPTF
draft. Incidentally, I will also be filing comments on behalf of ABAG which
will support the positions taken in the attached document, but I am not
proposing that ABAG also be a party to this filing. Thanks for your help!
Comments as soon as possible would be very much appreciated!
Dan
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 596-2201
Fax: (818) 346-6502
[email protected] << File: file://C:\Program Files\Common
Files\Microsoft Shared\Stationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc;
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, mailto:[email protected] >>
- Blank Bkgrd.gif << File: Blank Bkgrd.gif >>
- 6-25-01 AReM Comments - Draft 1.doc << File: 6-25-01 AReM Comments - Draft
1.doc >>
=====================================
|
4,248 |
Subject: FW: AN ACTUAL 1950'S HOME ECONOMICS TEXTBOOK
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1783.
=====================================
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM AN ACTUAL 1950'S HOME ECONOMICS TEXTBOOK INTENDED FOR
HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS, TEACHING THEM HOW TO PREPARE FOR
MARRIED? LIFE:
1. Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious
meal - on time. This is a way of letting him know that
you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs.? Most
men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a
good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.
2. Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he
arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your
hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.
Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His
boring day may need a lift.
3. Clear away clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house
just before your husband arrives, gather up school
books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables. Your husband
will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and
it will give you a lift too.
4. Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and
faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if
necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like
to see them playing the part.
5. Minimize the noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of
washer, dryer or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to
be quiet.? Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him.
6. Some DON'TS. Don't greet him with problems or complaints.? Don't complain
if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared
with what he might have gone through that day.
7. Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest
he lay down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink
ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes.? Speak in
a low, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax
and unwind.
8. Listen to him. You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of
his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first.
9. Make the evening his. Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner
or to other places of entertainment instead try to
understand his world of strain and pressure and his need to be home and
relax.
10. The goal. Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your
husband can relax.
? ***********************************
THE UPDATED VERSION FOR THE WOMAN OF 2000:
1. Have dinner ready. Make reservations ahead of time. If your day becomes
too hectic just leave him a voice mail message regarding
where you'd like to eat and at what time. This lets him know that your day
has been crappy and gives him an opportunity to change
your mood.
?2. Prepare yourself. A quick stop at the Clinique counter on your way home
will do wonders for your outlook and will keep you from
becoming irritated every time he opens his mouth. (Don't forget to use his
credit card.)
3. Clear away the clutter. Call the housekeeper and tell her that any
miscellaneous items left on the floor by the children can be
placed? in the Goodwill box in the garage.
4. Prepare the children. Send the children to their rooms to watch television
or play Nintendo. After all, both of them are from his
previous marriage.
5. Minimize the noise. If you happen to be home when he arrives, be in
bathroom with the door locked.
6. Some DON'TS. Don't greet him with problems and complaints. Let him speak
first, and then your complaints will get more attention
and remain fresh in his mind throughout dinner.? Don't complain if he's late
for dinner, simply remind him that the leftovers are in
the fridge and you left the dishes for him to do.
7. Make him comfortable. Tell him where he can find a blanket if he's cold.?
This will really show you care.
8. Listen to him. But don't ever let him get the last word.
9. Make the evening his. Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner
or other places of entertainment, go with a friend or
go shopping (use his credit card.) Familiarize him with the phrase Girls'
Night Out.
10.The Goal. Try to keep things amicable without reminding him that he only
thinks the world revolves around him.? Obviously he's
wrong, it revolves around you.
=====================================
|
4,249 |
Subject: RE: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/204.
=====================================
Susan, the issue is not the date--the question is, for any date deadline we're working against, what is the time cutoff for the DASR to be accepted by the utility. An example is that SCE picks up DASRs at 5:00 pacific; if we don't submit a DASR until 6:00 pacific, but before midnight of that same day, is it still effective for the day that we submitted it, or would it be viewed as effective for the following day?
From: Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/17/2001 04:10 PM
To: Nancy Hetrick/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: RE: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Nancy,
As we discussed, the current proposed decision does not provide any date for closing off DASRs. Rather, it would end the right to choose (direct access). If direct access is suspended by the CPUC, DASRs should continue to be accepted by utilities for DASRs related to contracts signed before the suspension date. SDG&E has already told some ESPs that it does not plan to police the contracts and will continue to accept DASRs as long as necessary. To be safe, we must be move as quickly as possible to get all our DASRs in. The CPUC will be meeting this Thursday and is scheduled to vote on suspending DA. We can't predict the outcome; the vote could be delayed again, leaving us uncertain as to whether or when DA will be suspended.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hetrick, Nancy
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:32 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Gresch, Robert
Subject: FW: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Is there someone on the California "Crisis" Team that can answer this question?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gresch, Robert
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:43 PM
To: Hetrick, Nancy
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Nancy, when we went through our last big DASR emergency week before last, the question was raised as to what was the effective date of a DASR, e.g., is it midnight of the day that you've submitted it, or if the utility picks up the information from their file server at 5:00 p.m. (SoCal) is does that determine the effective date such that anything submitted later would have an effective date of the following day? Could you give us some guidance on the right answer? We used the pickup time of the utility, in which case we had to have all the SCE DASRs submitted by about 3:00 Houston time to give CSC the ability to key the data into their system and run their batch process prior to SCE's pickup time.
Bob
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES on 09/10/2001 05:38 PM ---------------------------
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Robert D Gresch
08/31/2001 04:19 PM
To: Mark Kiddle/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Brenda Herod, Gregg Young, Victor Gonzalez/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Miller, Jay Bhatty , [email protected]
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
To clarify below. The 3:00 cutoff for SCE DASRs will not allow for 480 SCE accounts. CSC has stated they could do about 120 in an hour. I have indicated it below in a revision. The 480 would apply to a group of DASRs from all utilities. Additionally, CSC has stated that from 6:00 forward, the amounts shown below are guesses of what they can do, but there is a lack of certainty.
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES on 08/31/2001 03:36 PM ---------------------------
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Robert D Gresch
08/31/2001 03:34 PM
To: Mark Kiddle/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Brenda Herod, Gregg Young, Victor Gonzalez/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Miller, Jay Bhatty
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Mark, per our conversations, these are the details of how much CSC can handled from a DASR bandwidth perspective, and what the utility and CSC deadlines are:
Central Time DASR Ability UDC Pickup Deadline
7:00 a.m. 1200
11:00 a.m. 960 Cutoff for EEMC
12:00 p.m. 840
1:00 720
2:00 600
3:00 480 (120 SCE) Need to have SCE DASRs to CSC
4:00 - 5:00 Batch Process Shutdown
5:00 200
6:00 70
7:00 50 5:00 Pacific for SCE
8:00 --
9:00 Batch Process Shutdown
10:00
11:00
12:00 a.m.
1:00 a.m. 12:00 Eastern for PG&E and SDG&E
=====================================
|
4,250 |
Subject: A DRAFT OF A BRIEF ON CALIFORNIA'S WOES for ENRON'S REGULATORY AND
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/7790.
=====================================
WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ENRON
NOT HERE....NO WAY
The root cause of California's high electricity costs today stem from a
severe lack of new
power plants. Why? Not enough capacity was added since 1996 due to
tough
siting problems in this ecology prone state. Even Enron gave up in
Pittsburg, in North California
when it took too long to site a clean 500 MW gas combined cycle plant on an
empty site that is
right next door to an existing plant! In fact in all the state only 700
MW of new capacity were added since 1996 compared to its growth of 11000
MW since then. This growth ate up all the surplus capacity that existed
in 1996. No wonder they are power short. It is a tough dilemma since
this state's hi tech businesses and commercial businesses and homeowners
have fast growing demand for more and more reliable power.
THE 10 PERCENT CUTS BOTH WAYS
The CPUC compounded the state's problems when they put their electric
deregulation plan in place in 1997-98
by mandating a high 10 percent rate cut to residential and commercial
consumers--which Enron loudly protested at the time--. This rate cu, just
as Enron predicted discouraged alternative
power sellers from selling into California because it was a hard price
to beat and it blurred consumers understanding of what is actually
happening to their cost of power. It would have worked if PG&E and SoCalEd
had cut their costs --as they should have -- by 10 percent to accommodate
the rate cuts, but of course they didn't. Surprise surprise.
BI LATERAL CONTRACTS TO THE RESCUE
Further problems arose because of the CPUCs requirement for wholesale
buyers and sellers to use the PX (power exchange) auction system -- instead
of bilateral contracting which Enron Government Affairs strongly
advocated at the time -- . The PX uses an auction to set a single
highest price that clears the market in one time period for all power,
rather than the variety of prices that can be agreed to by dozens of
counterparties under a free market using bilateral contracting. Now
that the PX is often unworkable bilateral contracting is begging to be
allowed. But it may be too little too late.
TO MAKE THINGS WORSE
Because the CPUC has been shocked by the high prices being reached in the
PX , it now has been setting tight $150 - $250 MW price caps which
obviates its own auction process and discourages sellers of power away
from selling power into California. But it also worsen the economics
for any potential power plant developers who might be out there
considering building a plant in C alifornia. Many US power markets
have no price caps at all or caps of $1000 MW (or high enough so
they are seldom triggered.) Not California.
CALIFORNIA'S WOES AREN'T EASY TO FIX
What does this all mean? If California had listened to Enron it
would have avoided the severe problems it has today--- lack of new
plants, lack of market oriented power prices, rate caps that discourage
sellers and developers alike and irate customers. It would have had no
automatic rate cut and consumers would know when their costs were
going up or down. The State would use bilateral contracting to get
its supplies so if Duke or Enron or Exelon or Dynegy or whoever had
contracts with counterparties the prices would be variously set and
if more power demand was evident, developers would have a clear
economic basis on which to contract for their new plants. There would be
no need for price caps.
NOT IN MY BACKYARD OR YOURS EITHER!!
On the power plant siting problem, this is a tough one. California is a
beautiful state and prides itself on its green conscience. Even a few high
tech companies that need 99.9999 percent reliable power desparately are
still unwilling to build a small clean gas combined cycle plant inside
their own fence. So we do not know how California can resolve siting
problems as it is a quirk of the state that says give me lots more
cheap, environmentally clean power but don't build any plants here in my
state to do it.
=====================================
|
4,251 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #32
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28084.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW062501a.pdf>> <<ROIC_Under_FERC.xls>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Fall 10.4% Last week our IPP composite fell 10.4%, underperforming
both the NASDAQ (+0.3%) and the S&P 500 (+0.9%). International Power was
the strongest performer in the group, rising 1.7%. Shaw Group was the
weakest performer, falling 18.1%.
2. Same Old Story--Politics Last week's lackluster stock price performance
reflected lingering political and regulatory uncertainties. These concerns
were heightened by the FERC's latest order issued on Monday (6/18), calling
for expanded price controls in the Western markets. In addition, the
subject of retroactive refunds received renewed attention.
3 The Litmus Test: Impact on Forward Earnings, Returns and Growth Rates In
our view, the market's litmus test for evaluating these stories must focus
on whether any event has taken place that negatively impacts forward
earnings, returns or growth rates for the sector. Our analysis of recent
events points to an unchanged forward earnings profile for the sector. On
that basis, we regard the recent stock price activity as irrational.
4. Significant ROIC Possible Under FERC Plan Under a best case scenario,
assuming power prices remain at their maximum allowable levels under a power
emergency, we estimate that a new combined cycle natural gas-fired power
plant can earn up to a 68% ROIC. Under a more likely scenario, assuming
average power prices approximate 60% of the maximum allowable level, such a
plant could earn a 25% ROIC. Importantly, 2-3 years ago, power plant
developers were predicating their investment decisions on a targeted 12%
ROIC. We have attached a spreadsheet containing our analysis.
5. FERC Settlement Conference Begins Today Today a FERC hosted settlement
conference will begin, bringing together California power generators and
utilities. The goal will be to get the parties to arrive at an agreement on
this issue of refunds and the repayment of past receivables. While the
possibility of retroactive refunds presents some uncertainties for the
IPP's, we believe closure on this issue could be imminent. The settlement
conference may bring some resolution to the situation. Regardless, if no
agreement is reached, FERC will issue a final decision on this matter.
6. RRI Analyst Meeting on Tuesday On Tuesday (6/26), Reliant Resources
will host its first major analyst meeting since its April 2001 IPO. At the
meeting we expect management to clarify its longer-term exposure to FERC's
expanded price controls.
7. CSFB Hosting Lunch With UK Chief Regulator on Friday On Friday (6/29)
at noon, CSFB will be hosting a luncheon with Callum McCarthy, Chief
Executive of the UK Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM). In his
position, McCarthy serves as the chief power and gas regulator in the UK.
The luncheon will take place at our offices at 11 Madison Avenue on the 27th
floor. Please contact us if you would like to attend.
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.
- IPW062501a.pdf
- ROIC_Under_FERC.xls
=====================================
|
4,252 |
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Amendment 30 & Alliance RTO Filing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1591.
=====================================
I have a pretty major philosophical disagreement with AMendment 30. I come
from the camp that says we want an ISO that has minimal duties. If the ISO
is able to enter into forward contracts, well ... how is that any different
from a vertically-integrated utility? Let's see, so the ISO controls all the
T and now will control some G. Aren't we concerned about that? I have heard
from some that this is the "best solution" -- I need someone to explain to me
why.
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Janine
Migden/DUB/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Cal ISO Amendment 30 & Alliance RTO Filing
EPSA needs feedback on Cal and Alliance filings and what position EPSA can
take. Thoughts?
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 09/20/2000
03:32 PM ---------------------------
"Jackie Gallagher" <[email protected]> on 09/20/2000 03:07:06 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Cal ISO Amendment 30 & Alliance RTO Filing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regulatory Affairs Committee
Power Marketers Working Group
FROM: Don Santa, Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair
Joe Hartsoe, Power Marketing Working Group Chair
Julie Simon, Vice President of Policy
Mark Bennett, Senior Manager of Policy
DATE: September 20, 2000
RE: ? Cal ISO Amendment 30
? Alliance RTO Filing
Two issues arose on the weekly conference call today on which we need your
assistance and feedback. Please forward comments to Julie Simon at
202-789-7200 or [email protected] by close of business on Monday, September
25th.
1. Cal ISO Amendment 30
On September 11, 2000 the Cal ISO filed Amendment No. 30 to its ISO Tariff at
FERC. In this filing, the Cal ISO is "reluctantly" asking FERC for authority
to buy forward contracts to meet its real-time balancing obligations. Costs
of the forward contracts would be allocated to Scheduling Coordinators who
deviate in real time from their schedules. Interventions and protests are
due on October 2nd.
While EPSA has consistently opposed an ISO role as market participant, there
are concerns here about the lack of alternatives available in California.
While an ISO's role in the real-time balancing market should be small, as a
practical matter, the Cal ISO has been forced to procure thousands of
megawatts in the real time markets. Thus, deciding how to approach this
filing balances difficult competing goals. Please let us know how you would
like EPSA to proceed.
2. Alliance RTO
On September 15th the Alliance RTO made a compliance filing at FERC seeking
to address all of FERC's concerns about its earlier proposals and purporting
to meet all the requirements of Order No. 2000. The filing retains a transco
structure, with a 5 percent ownership limitation for individual market
participants and a 15 percent ownership limitation on each class of market
participants. It also eliminates pancaked rates in favor of zonal, or
license plate, rates for deliveries within the Alliance and postage-rates for
through or out deliveries. While the geographic scope is unchanged, the
scope will be larger than any operating RTO. The filing includes a pro-forma
inter-RTO coordination agreement to address seams issues such as security
coordination, market monitoring, regional planning ATC and TTC calculations
and pricing reciprocity.
Until now, EPSA has not been a party to the Alliance proceeding. With this
latest filing it may be appropriate for EPSA to intervene, raising issues of
support or opposition to the filing. To determine how to proceed, however,
we need input from those companies that have been more closely involved in
the development of the Alliance. Please let us know how EPSA should proceed
with respect to this latest filing.
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]
=====================================
|
4,253 |
Subject: RE: Bond Leg Language, etc.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28321.
=====================================
Saw your note. I COMPLETELY AGREE that we have to delete the DA suspension
language from the bill, I thought that was the entire purpose of doing this
bill. If the bond language is passed without altering that, the CPUC can
argue that the Legislature has expressly endorsed the ABX -1 suspension of
direct access again! What are our chances? Is the Burton/Hertzberg
language you referece different than the Sher bill? If so, should I look at
it? Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bond Leg Language, etc.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/05/2001 02:38 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff To: [email protected],
[email protected],
Dasovich [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
07/05/2001 [email protected],
[email protected],
02:07 PM [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:
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
=====================================
|
4,254 |
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13036.
=====================================
Correct, I also signed off with Ron Carroll of Bracewell last night. On the
call, the filing would be discussed as an informational item for the whole
group. Ray
Susan J Mara
05/23/2001 06:23 PM
To: Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Barry Tycholiz/Enron@EnronXGate, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Donna
Fulton/Corp/Enron@Enron, [email protected], James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Leslie
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve
Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Privileged & Confidential Communication
Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted
One caveat -- on the expedited motion -- we have to tell them whether we are
in or out by 1pm EDT tomorrow. SO, we would not be discussing at in our
conference call. I have already recommended internally that we go forward
and join Dynegy's motion. So, by the time we have our call tomorrow, the
filing will be made already.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
Ray Alvarez
05/23/2001 02:25 PM
To: Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Don
Black/HOU/EES@EES, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie
Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Barry Tycholiz/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Privileged & Confidential Communication
Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted
TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA:
CA Legislature's suit against FERC
Expedited motion in ER01-889-002 for enforcement action against CAISO re
compliance with FERC's orders on creditworthiness and noncompliance with the
creditworthiness provisions of its own tariff.
---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron on 05/23/2001 05:19
PM ---------------------------
Ray Alvarez
05/23/2001 04:39 PM
To: Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Don
Black/HOU/EES@EES, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie
Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Barry Tycholiz/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Privileged & Confidential Communication
Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted
PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Date: Every Thursday
Time: 1:00 pm Pacific, 3:00 pm Central, and 4:00 pm Eastern time,
Number: 1-888-271-0949
Host Code: 661877 (for Ray only)
Participant Code: 936022 (for everyone else)
The table of the on-going FERC issues and proceedings has been updated for
use on tomorrow's conference call, and is attached. It is available to all
team members on the O drive. Please feel free to revise/add to/ update this
table as appropriate.
Proposed agenda for tomorrow:
Rehearing of FERC market monitoring and mitigation order in EL00-95-12 (item
9d)
ISO de-rating of ATC complaint- status (item 20)
ISO governance comment opportunity (item 32)
FERC staff technical conference on inter- and intrastate gas pipeline
capacity into CA- update (item 30)
FERC order in RP01-180 requesting comments on the reimposition of maximum
rate ceilings on short term capacity releases into CA- discussion
FERC order in ER01-1579 denying waiver of CAISO underscheduling penalty-
discussion
Please feel free to communicate to the group any additional agenda items you
may have.
=====================================
|
4,255 |
Subject: AP Article: "California warns of possibility of rolling blackouts "
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4730.
=====================================
California warns of possibility of rolling blackouts
STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday,?December 13, 2000
,2000 Associated Press
(12-13) 14:50 PST SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- U.S. Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson ordered Northwest generators to sell electricity to California
utilities Wednesday after state regulators warned that low power supplies
could force rolling blackouts.
The warning came from the Independent System Operator, keeper of California's
power grid. It said that electricity supplies were so perilously low that it
might declare a Stage 3 power emergency for only the second time ever. At
Stage 3, the grid can impose blackouts.
Richardson said at a Washington, D.C., news conference he was using emergency
powers to force wholesalers to sell power to California at a price he deemed
fair. He said he would also request that two large Pacific Northwest power
generating associations send more power to California.
``Our objective is to keep the lights on in California through this emergency
situation,'' he said. ``We're dealing with a potentially very serious
situation here.''
California has been caught in a power crunch over the past several days, in
part because of cold weather in the Northwest -- where California buys much
of its power -- and the shutdown of some generating plants for maintenance.
California's two largest utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern
California Edison, are near bankruptcy due to skyrocketing wholesale power
costs, Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said at a
Washington, D.C., news conference with Richardson.
Davis and Feinstein asked federal regulators to set a regional price cap on
wholesale electricity to prevent the high prices that have plagued
California. On Friday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission lifted price
caps in California.
Record wholesale power prices followed, and PG&E warned it was in financial
danger.
The problem became especially acute when about a dozen suppliers began
demanding cash before selling power to California, Kellan Fluckiger, the
ISO's chief operating officer, said Wednesday.
``The credit limits of utilities and what markets are willing to sell us have
been reached and surpassed in many cases,'' Fluckiger said. ``There are
questions about utility solvency. That has come to a head today.''
He said officials may have to interrupt power to as many as 4 million
customers Wednesday afternoon and early evening, when people come home from
work and power demand hits a peak.
An unprecedented Stage 3 emergency was issued last Thursday, meaning reserves
had fallen below 1.5 percent. But the state fended off rolling outages by
turning off two power-sucking water pumps.
This time, Fluckiger said any blackouts would probably last about an hour to
90 minutes and occur mostly in Northern California.
``It's a fairly bleak picture,'' he said. ``This thing will not change unless
something is done to alleviate the credit situation.''
A Stage 1 alert was declared Wednesday morning, meaning power reserves were
below 7 percent and all power users are asked to conserve.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 emergencies, in which power reserves fall below 5 percent
and large commercial customers can be forced to shut down, have become
routine this month, but last Thursday's Stage 3 was the only time the threat
of blackouts loomed.
Contributing to the problem is a shortage of water to power hydroelectric
generators in the Northwest and California, Fluckiger said.
``We have reservoirs so low that we have people standing by them watching the
situation to make sure it does not go below safe limits,'' he said.
The power crunch over the past few months has been blamed in part on
electricity deregulation. California approved a phased-in deregulation of the
electricity market in 1996 to try to lower prices for consumers through
competition, but so far it has led to higher energy prices.
At the same time, wholesale power costs have been soaring, in large part
because of skyrocketing prices for natural gas. Wall Street is worried about
utilities' financial health, and on Tuesday, a consumer group urged the state
to seize and run the strapped $20 billion electricity system.
,2000 Associated Press ?
=====================================
|
4,256 |
Subject: Summer 2001 EMBA Seminar In International Business - Initial
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3841.
=====================================
Dear Evening MBA Students,
It is once again time to plan for the EMBA Seminar in International
Business. For those of you unfamiliar with this course, please see
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/HaasGlobal/NGcourseoutline.htm for the
2000 version that looked at Ghana, Belgium and the Netherlands or
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/HaasGlobal/JVcourseoutline.htm for the
1999 version that included Japan and Vietnam.
For 2001 we are going to try something slightly different. We will have two
distinct programs - one will be a repeat of last year's and the other will
venture into new territory. The details are as follows. Please note that
everything mentioned below is still tentative and subject to change or
cancellation.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Both programs will commence with a series of classes, at Haas, in June.
Program A, led by Diane Dimeff will retrace the itinerary of the 2000
program to Ghana, the Netherlands and Belgium. The approximate dates for
the travel portion will be Saturday, July 7 through Saturday, July 21.
Program B, led by Sebastian Teunissen will consist of one of two possible
itineraries, depending on student demand:
itinerary 1: Cuba, Panama and Venezuela (or Costa Rica.)
itinerary 2: Australia and Indonesia.
Travel for program B will also start on approximately July 7 and end on
approximately July 21.
Costs for the programs are expected to be approximately equal to those
charged in previous years ($4,600), with the exception of the
Australia/Indonesia option. If this program is selected the final cost is
likely to be roughly $1,000 higher due to increased air fares. Final costs
will be determined once itineraries are set.
As you can see, planning is still in the early stages. But, before we go
much farther we need to know who is interested in participating. So, we
need to receive expressions of interest, in the form of a refundable $100
deposit from interested students.
APPLICATION PRIORITIES
Students will have different priorities depending on seniority. Priorities
are as follows:
Top Priority - both programs - students in fourth semester or higher in
January 2001 who HAVE NOT participated in the program in a previous year.
Second Priority - Program B only - students in fourth semester or higher
who did participate in the program in a previous year. These students are
not eligible for program A.
Lowest Priority - both programs - students in second or third semester.
Each group is limited to a maximum of 15 students.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE
Please submit, to the Evening MBA office, a check in the sum of $100
payable to UC Regents together with the following information, no later
than December 15, 2000.
- Name
- Semester level as of January 2001
- Whether or not you have previously participated in the program
- Choice of program: A or B (If you choose program B please also indicate
your preferred destination: Latin America or Australia/Indonesia.)
- e-mail address
Once we have a clear indication of preferences the final details will be
planned and announced. The announcement will likely be made in January. At
that time you will be advised of the program for which you are eligible.
You will then be asked to increase your deposit by $900 and the entire
$1,000 deposit becomes non-refundable.
OTHER ISSUES
Please check your passport to ensure that it expires no earlier than
December 31, 2001. If it does please renew it now. Passports with shorter
expirations may be rejected for visas, depending on the countries to which
you will travel.
Also, please check the visa requirements for the countries of interest for
your particular nationality. This may have a bearing on the program that
you select.
You might wish to check out the US State Department Consular Information
Sheets and Travel Warnings at http://travel.state.gov/travel_warnings.html
before applying.You may also wish to review health information at
http://www.tripprep.com/ or at http://www.cdc.gov/travel/.
Should you have any questions please contact me.
Regards,
Sebastian
===============================
Sebastian Teunissen
Director of International Affairs
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720-1900 USA
Tel: (510) 643-4999
Fax: (510) 642-8228
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/HaasGlobal
=====================================
|
4,257 |
Subject: RE: Re: Case study option
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/790.
=====================================
Thanks very much. I'll try to subscribe again. Hey, forgive me for being a snoop, but do you not wear glasses at all anymore?
Signed,
Four eyes
-----Original Message-----
From: Courtney Abernathy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:32 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Lesley Keffer
Subject: Fwd: Re: Case study option
--- Florian Pestoni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Case study option
> To: "Howard Shelanski"
> <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected],
> [email protected]
> From: "Florian Pestoni" <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:52:30 -0700
>
>
> Howard,
> a clarification about the case sudy alternative: for
> the less risk averse,
> is it OK to submit only 2 papers (since only 2 would
> count towards the
> grade)? If so, could one of the two papers be the
> non-Masten (possibly
> group) write up?
>
> Regards,
> Florian Pestoni
> IBM Almaden Research Center
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> "Howard Shelanski"
> <[email protected]>@haas.berkeley.edu
> on
> 10/21/2001 08:13:53 PM
>
> Sent by: [email protected]
>
>
> To: [email protected],
> [email protected]
> cc:
> Subject: Case study option
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Below please find the guidelines for the alternative
> to the final
> exam. Thanks,
>
> HS
>
>
> Guidelines for MBA Case-Study Alternative
>
> Instead of taking the final exam in this
> course, you have the
> option of writing three short papers analyzing case
> studies of
> transactions. Your grade will be determined by the
> best two of the
> three papers you hand in. At least two of the
> studies must be
> individually authored. One may be submitted as a
> group project if you
> have classmates you wish to collaborate with. There
> is no requirement,
> however, that you participate in a group project?you
> may do all three
> on your own.
>
> Coverage: At least two of your papers should
> address case
> studies from the Masten book. You may cover case
> studies we have
> already discussed in class or you may choose cases
> we skipped or have
> not yet covered. If you wish, one of your three
> papers may address a
> case study from another source or from your own work
> experience. It is
> important, however, that the case involve
> transactional issues.
> Examples of appropriate cases are those involving
> procurement
> negotiations, make-or-buy decisions, contractual
> bargaining or
> renegotiation, and structural transactions like
> mergers, acquisitions,
> or spin-offs.
>
> Your paper should be structured around several
> questions: (1)
> what is the phenomenon to be explained and why is it
> interesting? (2)
> What explanations does the author of the study offer
> for the observed
> facts? (Or, if an outside case, why did the parties
> involved do what
> they did?) (3) Do you find the author's theory
> convincing? Why and/or
> why not? (4) What alternative explanations would you
> want to
> investigate for the empirical evidence? Are there
> any explanations you
> think are likely to be as, or more, important? And
> (5) what applied
> value does the study have in the business
> setting?i.e. what are the
> useful take-home lessons for managers? You need not
> restrict yourself
> to these questions or strictly follow the above
> structure. It is just a
> suggested guideline for the kind of coverage I
> expect.
>
> Deadlines: The first paper will be due October
> 31, the second
> is due November 28, and the third is due December
> 12. You may submit
> the papers in Word or Wordperfect format by e-mail
> or in person. In
> order to give you guidance on grading and
> expectations, I will return
> the October 31 papers in class the following week.
>
> Length: There is no set length, although I
> expect it will take
> 5-7 double-spaced pages to cover the suggested
> analysis. Some of you
> may wish to write more, and in some cases you might
> do a good job in
> fewer pages. But 5-7 pages is generally what I have
> in mind. Please use
> 12-point font and standard 1-inch margins.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
=====================================
|
4,258 |
Subject: Internet Daily for November 20, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1988.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Tuesday, November 20, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Stocks, bonds and babes
If the bottom falls out of the market, wouldn't it be better to
hear about it from someone not wearing a bottom? Perhaps this
was the genesis of MarketwrapUnwrapped.com, a Sydney,
Australia-based Web site featuring naked women offering stock
market reports. Streaming video of two women, wearing little but
smiles, greets visitors to the site. "Oh, hi! Thanks for
checking us out," says one of them, Georgie Jestico. The Web
site's biography section says she was born in England and has
completed two years at "San Francisco University," though
there's not a school in San Francisco by that exact name. She
and three other anchor/models deliver "all the market news.
Takeovers, mergers and bums," they say in a video teaser to
encourage subscribers to pay $9.95 monthly for real-time
updates. The announcers begin their reports clothed, and remove
clothing as they go through the news. "There is no market
advice, it's just a wrap," explained Sam Ruddock, the site's
managing director, in an interview with Reuters. "It is very
tame. It's only R rated," he added. Launched two weeks ago,
Ruddock said the site has 50 subscribers.
Another such site, NakedNews.com, has been in business in two
years. It recently expanded to offer two channels of
programming, and now features 10 women and four men reporting
news, sports and weather.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Online retailers get federal warning
The Federal Trade Commission has reminded online retailers of
its regulations on shipping. The FTC said it surveyed 110
Internet retailers and notified 72 of them of the mail order
rule. It requires merchants to send orders to buyers consistent
with the site's claim, or, if no time is stated, within 30 days.
The commission found 52 of 110 sites made "quick-ship claims."
Inadequate warranty information was also found on 52 sites, the
agency reported. The warranty rule requires written warranties
on consumer products costing more than $15 be made available to
consumers before they buy.
The number of complaints about Internet retailers has become
comparable to those about telemarketers and auto repair shops.
The National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and
the Consumer Federation of America said consumer complaints
about the Internet ranked eighth among the groups' top 10
categories. The most commonly cited problems were about online
purchases and auctions. "People don't always get what they order
over the Internet and sometimes they don't get anything at all,"
said Wendy Weinberg, executive director of the NACAA. She
suggested buyers use credit cards, print out receipts and vary
passwords on Web sites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Online shopping holds little interest for most
Only one out of nine people say shopping online is their
preference for this holiday season, according to Accenture
research. "Given a heightened fear of terrorism, it was somewhat
surprising the physical store was by far the most popular
shopping venue," the consulting firm's report said. For all
shoppers, clothing items are the most popular gift items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,259 |
Subject: Kern River Expansion Press Releas
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10391.
=====================================
Williams Announces Major Expansion of Kern River Pipeline
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 22, 2001--A unit of Williams (NYSE:
WMB - news) Thursday announced an expansion project on its Kern River
pipeline that will more than double the amount of natural gas transported on
the 926-mile pipeline system.
The 2003 Kern River Expansion Project will provide 900 million cubic feet
per day of additional transportation capacity from Wyoming to California by
May of 2003.
Last November, Williams held an open season to determine the level of
interest from shippers for additional transportation capacity from Rocky
Mountain basins to markets in Utah, Nevada, and California.
``We knew the demand was strong, however the response was even greater than
we anticipated. There is a tremendous demand for natural gas to fuel new
electric generation facilities in California and Nevada.
``This expansion provides shippers with an economically attractive
opportunity to secure additional firm year-round transportation,'' said Kirk
Morgan, director of business development for Kern River.
The more than $1 billion expansion project will loop approximately 700 miles
of the existing Kern River pipeline system. Williams plans to file an
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in June.
All project issues -- including facility design, environmental studies,
rates and tariff provisions -- will be subject to review and approval by the
FERC.
Williams must also secure the necessary environmental and regulatory
approvals, and negotiate rights of way.
Last week, Williams filed a California Emergency Action application with the
FERC to install and operate emergency facilities on Kern River that would
increase capacity by approximately 19 percent over the current 700 million
cubic feet per day.
The $81 million emergency expansion project would add 135 million cubic feet
per day of firm transportation service into California by July 1, 2001, to
help meet the urgent need for additional energy this summer.
In November of 2000, Williams filed an application with the FERC for its
first expansion on Kern River, the 2002 California Expansion Project. The
application proposes the installation of compression to provide an
additional 124 million cubic feet per day of firm transportation service.
This $80 million project is targeted for completion by May 1, 2002 and
largely relies upon facilities previously installed as part of the pending
California Emergency Action expansion project.
``Shippers are seeking more access to natural gas from Rocky Mountain
basins, where producers are aggressively stepping up production. Kern River
is in the right place at the right time to help bring that production to
market,'' said Morgan.
Williams' gas pipeline unit is based in Houston and has offices in Salt Lake
City and Owensboro, Ky. Together, its five interstate natural gas pipelines
are among the nation's largest-volume transporters of natural gas,
delivering approximately 16 percent of the natural gas consumed in the
United States.
Williams' 27,300-mile pipeline network stretches from coast to coast with
access to every major supply basin in the country. The gas pipeline unit's
Kern River Gas Transmission delivers Rocky Mountain and Canadian natural gas
to markets in California, Nevada, and Utah. The system has a design capacity
of 700 million cubic feet per day.
About Williams
Williams, through its subsidiaries, connects businesses to energy and
communications. The company delivers innovative, reliable products and
services through its extensive networks of energy-distributing pipelines and
high-speed fiber-optic cables. Williams' information is available at
www.williams.com.
Portions of this document may constitute ``forward-looking statements'' as
defined by federal law. Although the company believesany such statements are
based on reasonable assumptions, there is no assurance that actual outcomes
will not be materially different. Any such statements are made in reliance
on the ``safe harbor'' protections provided under the Private Securities
Reform Act of 1995.
Additional information about issues that could lead to material changes in
performance is contained in the company's annual reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
=====================================
|
4,260 |
Subject: Fwd: California Deal With SCE Is On Shaky Ground
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11202.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/17/2001 01:05 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
04/17/2001 12:43 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: California Deal With SCE Is On Shaky Ground
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Apr
2001 12:25:37 -0500 -----
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: California Deal With SCE Is On Shaky Ground
CALIFORNIA DEAL TO BUY SCE HEADED FOR TROUBLE IN LEGISLATURE, CPUC
_______________________________________________
Date: April 18, 2001 -
A source with California State Senator Debra Bowen's (D) office says Gov.
Gray Davis' (D) tentative agreement to buy Southern California Edison's (SCE)
transmission assets will face tough scrutiny from suspicious lawmakers who do
not believe it is in the best interest of ratepayers. State regulators are
also expressing concern about the deal and consumer advocates are predicting
its demise.
"There are two alternatives," says the Bowen source. "Lawmakers will either
fashion a better deal or allow SCE to work out their problems in bankruptcy
court."
Bowen is the chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications
Committee.
The deal calls for SCE to sell its transmission assets to the state
Department of Water Resources (DWR) for 2.3 times its book value or $2.76
billion. The agreement also calls for the California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) to establish a rate plan so that $3.5 billion of debt could
be recovered by SCE for its power purchases before the state began buying
electricity in January.
"This is the single most important cash flow provision of the memorandum of
understanding," says a source with the state Office of Ratepayer Advocate
(ORA). "SCE will collect all of the costs they have incurred." ORA had argued
against bailing SCE out of debt saying its parent company had ample funds.
In return for the premium paid in excess of the value of its transmission
assets, SCE has agreed to sell the output of its generating plants at
cost-based rates.
"Because of the premium, cost-based rates should be lower," says the ORA
source.
"The senator is very skeptical," says the Bowen source. "The deal is a great
benefit for generators and utilities but little, if any, benefit for
ratepayers."
The source says there is also concern with the SCE deal because it will only
involve about a third of the 32,000 miles of transmission lines in the state.
"If you buy a third of a bridge don't you wind up getting wet" asks the Bowen
source.
Davis has expressed optimism that the state will eventually obtain all of the
state's utility transmission lines. Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E)
bankruptcy filing has complicated the governor's plan, but Davis says the
state can now obtain the assets through the courts. However, the state must
now compete with private companies intent on the same thing. Negotiations
between the state and San Diego Gas & Electric are continuing.
The Bowen source says provisions in the deal which fashion a way for
generators to collect all they are owed by SCE is also of concern to
lawmakers.
"The state's position was that the rates charged by generators were unjust
and unreasonable," says the source. "If you now pay the generators you have,
at the very least, a public relations problem."
The source says there may also be a court fight over the issue.
"The creditors dealing with PG&E in bankruptcy court would probably want the
same treatment," says the source. "This creates an intriguing whipsaw effect."
A bill outlining the terms of the agreement between the state must be
introduced before official consideration begins in the legislature.
A source with UCAN says a bill based on the present agreement will never be
passed.
"If it survives, it will be modified," says the source.
Source: Electric Power Alert via EnergyWashington.com
Date: April 18, 2001
Issue: Vol. 11, No. 8
, Inside Washington Publishers
=====================================
|
4,261 |
Subject: Federal Register Report for Period 2/10/01 to 2/21/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5137.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Sue Nord/NA/Enron on 03/01/2001 01:58 PM -----
Eric Benson
02/22/2001 02:19 PM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Federal Register Report for Period 2/10/01 to 2/21/01
Sue -
The following reports Federal Register notices for the period ending February
21, 2001:
DATE AGENCY SUMMARY IMPORTANT DATES
2/12/01 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed rule to reexamine the need
for Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) spectrum aggregation limits;
seeking comment on whether the CMRS spectrum cap and the cellular
cross-interest rule should be eliminated, modified, or retained, based on the
public interest standard set forth under section 11 of the Commissions Act
comments are due on or before 4/13/01 and reply comments are due e on or
before 3/14/01
FCC final rule - document denies five petitions for reconsideration of the
Commission's Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration challenging
a number of the modifications to the C and F block service and auction rules
2/13/01 FCC final rule resolves a number of issues concerning the transition of
digital broadcast television; issues resolved in the report include when to
require election by licensees of their post transition DTV channel; whether
to require replication by DTV licensees of their NTSC Grade B service
contours; whether to require enhanced service to the principal community
served by DTV licensees effective 4/16/01
FCC final rule concerns rules and policies for attributing cognizable
interests in applying the broadcast multiple ownership rules, the broadcast
cable cross ownership rule, and the cable multipoint distribution service
cross ownership rule effective 4/16/01
FCC proposed rule regarding DTV reception capability; propose to require
certain types of new television sets have the capability to demodulate and
decode over the air DTV signals by a date certain; also seeks comments on how
best to implement such a requirement, including alternatives for phasing in
DTV reception capability comments are due 4/6/01; reply comments are due by 5/7/01
2/14/01 FCC final rule - Commission adopts mechanisms and make determinations
intended to facilitate the clearing of the 740-806 MHz band to allow for the
introduction of new wireless services and to promote the early transition of
analog television licensees to digital television service effective 2/14/01
2/15/01 FCC FCC seeks comment about whether it should modify a program to
collect basic information about the status of local telephone service
competition and the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability,
also known as broadband comments are due on or before 3/19/01; reply comments due on or
before 4/12/01
2/16/01 FCC final rule permits non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)
fixed-satallite (FSS) providers to operate in certain segments of the
Ku-band; NGSO FSS can provide a variety of new services to the public, such
as high speed internet access, plus other types of high speed data, video and
telephony services; document concludes that a new terrestrial fixed
multichannel video distribution and data service can share the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band with satellite operations w/out causing harmful interference effective 3/19/01
FCC proposed rule to establish rules governing the migration to a 6.25 kHz
technology on the 700 MHz public safety band General Use channels comments due
3/19/01; reply comments due 4/2/01
FCC commission amends its rules to establish operational, technical, and
spectrum requirements for the use of the interoperability portion of the 700
MHz public safety band rules become effective 3/19/01
2/21/01 FCC notice given that the charter of the National Coordination
Committee, a Federal Advisory Committee established by the FCC, has been
renewed for a 2 year period commencing 2/25/01 2/25/01
2/22/01 FCC final rule amends the Table of Frequency Allocations by adding a
new footnote to permit use of the band 33-36 GHz by the Federal Government
fixed-satellite service (FSS) space to Earth; existing footnote revised to
denote that the Federal Government's use of this band is limited to military
systems effective 2/22/01
Please advise if you would like copies of any of the notices referenced above.
Eric
=====================================
|
4,262 |
Subject: Re: Kathleen Connell
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12833.
=====================================
To follow up on my previous notes:
A copy of the press release from the Controller's office is attached.
The release clarifies the charts I mentioned. The point was that less than
1% of all payments for energy purchases to date have gone toward long-term
contract deals. The governor's plan calls for 11% of all purchases made
between January 1 and June 1 of this year to be from long-term contracts.
Connell's point was that 30% of all future purchases would have to be under
long-term contracts to meet that goal, which she apparently believes is
unlikely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>
To: "Hedy Govenar" <[email protected]>; "Mike Day" <[email protected]>; "Bev
Hansen" <[email protected]>; "Jeff Dasovich" <[email protected]>; "Susan J
Mara" <[email protected]>; "Paul Kaufman" <[email protected]>; "Michael
McDonald" <[email protected]>; "Sandra McCubbin"
<[email protected]>; "Rick Shapiro" <[email protected]>; "Jim
Steffes" <[email protected]>; "Alan Comnes" <[email protected]>;
"Steven Kean" <[email protected]>; "Karen Denne" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; "Leslie Lawner" <[email protected]>;
"Robert Frank" <[email protected]>; "Ken Smith" <[email protected]>;
"Janel Guerrero" <[email protected]>; "Miyung Buster"
<[email protected]>; "Jennifer Thome" <[email protected]>;
"Eric Letke" <[email protected]>; "Mary Schoen" <[email protected]>;
"David Leboe" <[email protected]>; "Ban Sharma" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Kathleen Connell
> The following notes are from Ken Smith from State Controller Kathleen
> Connell's press conference today:
>
> California State Controller Kathleen Connell held a press conference
> today. Although the Dow Newswire said it would be to disclose long-term
> contracts, the event focused on what she believes will be an additional
> need for borrowing beyond the energy bonds.
>
> She anticipates an additional $4 billion in borrowing will be needed in
> February to meet expected costs. The borrowing should, she said, be
> done as Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs), short-term notes at a lower
> interest rates (about 4%) that must be paid back by the end of the year,
> rather than as additional energy bonds. She categorized the current
> budget situation as "the same kind of environment as a bad budget year,"
> and said California should maintain at least a 3% reserve.
>
> She did not comment on individual contracts except to say there are 17
> different contracts.
>
> Charts her office had prepared showed that $5.136 billion had been spent
> on energy purchases through 5/17/01; about 99% of that went to spot
> market purchases. There was also a chart that showed projected
> expenditures under the Governor's plan to be $8.349 billion for the
> period January 1-June 1, 2001, with about 89% of that going to spot
> market purchases. How these numbers work together was confusing - I
> checked with a reporter, who said he was also unclear. I'll try to get
> this cleared up this afternoon.
>
> An easel held a large photocopy of a $533 million check to Mirant, which
> is the largest energy check written to date. More has been paid to
> Reliant - she put it at about 25% of total expenditures - but "we have
> never written a check to Reliant over $500 million" because of the way
> they invoice.
>
> She said the Governor's financial assumptions for power "do not fit into
> the most likely scenario" and that summer conditions will greatly affect
> the actual spending needs. She noted that DWR estimates it will spend
> $9.2 billion through June 30, 2002, although the PUC has only authorized
> $7.5 billion.
>
> The other significant announcement was that she plans to use her
> authority with the Board of Equalization to hold hearings to determine
> whether power plants sold by utilities have been properly assessed for
> property taxes. Apparently, they are still on the tax rolls at previous
> rates, but she believes the profits recorded by some generators means
> the plants may be more valuable than their current assessments.
>
> A press release was not distributed at the event, although there may be
> one issued later today.
>
>
>
- Connell release.pdf
=====================================
|
4,263 |
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Letter to Loretta Lynch on rate agreement]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/408.
=====================================
Consumer Groups, Calif PUC Question Pwr Contract Validity
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--Two California consumer groups have asked California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate whether some state electricity contracts should be nullified because of a possible conflict of interest held by one of the state's negotiations, according to a press release Monday.
The Utility Reform Network and Consumers Union asked Lockyer to examine whether income earned from energy companies by consultant Vikram Budhraja presented a conflict of interest, because he may have been involved in contract negotiations with those companies
We believe there is ample evidence for the Attorney General to investigate whether some of the state's electricity contracts were made in violation of California's conflict of interest laws," said Bill Ahern, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union West Coast Regional Office. "If the Attorney General finds that a contract was made in violation of the law, it must be set aside as void."
Three weeks after Budhraja's January hire date, Williams Companies (WMB, news, msgs) won a $3.4 billion contract to provide power to the state over 10 1/2 years. Budhraja disclosed in mid-August that his company, the Electric Power Group, was paid more than $10,000 by Williams during the previous 12 months. Budhraja was hired by the California Department of Water Resources to negotiate power contracts, but hasn't said which generators he dealt with in the weeks before the Williams contract was signed.
"It is reasonable to assume that Budhraja may have been involved in the negotiations that led to the Williams contract," Ahern said. "It is also likely that there are more detailed records and evidence in existence, which only a subpoena or search warrant may uncover."
The groups also are concerned that Budhraja may have held a conflict of interest due to his potential involvement in negotiating a $3.9 billion contract with Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE, news, msgs) while he owned stocks in energy companies, according to the release.
The Attorney General's office recently said it doesn't plan to investigate conflicts of interest involving energy contract negotiations. No one at the office could be reached for comment Monday.
The California Public Utilities Commission is also petitioning federal regulators to throw out some of the state's $43 billion in long-term energy contracts, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday.
The CPUC has argued in filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the past three months that energy companies took advantage of the state's energy crisis to negotiate high-priced contracts, according to the report. The average price of power under the contracts is $69 a megawatt-hour, more than double peak electricity prices last week.
CPUC lawyers have filed challenges before the FERC on deals negotiated with Scottish Power (SPI, news, msgs) unit PacifiCorp, Alliance Colton LLC, Sempra Energy (SRE, news, msgs) and Calpine Corp. (CPN, news, msgs), according to the report.
Budhraja disclosed in August that he owned as much as $10,000 in Scottish Power stock while a $1 billion long-term contract with subsidiary PacifiCorp was being hammered out. The state signed the 10-year contract July 6. Budraha sold his stock July 30. State officials say Budhraja had nothing to do with the deal, according to the report.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dorothy Rothrock [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:07 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: [Fwd: Letter to Loretta Lynch on rate agreement]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Letter to Loretta Lynch on rate agreement
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:31:15 -0700
From: [email protected]
To:
[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],"DiMare,
Dominic"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
Attached is a letter faxed today to Commissioner Lynch from Californians
for Energy Action opposing adoption of the proposed DWR rate agreement.
(See attached file: PUC letter 10.1.01,rev 2.doc)
=====================================
|
4,264 |
Subject: Figures show state lost big on extra power
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29066.
=====================================
FYI. Many similar stories in the major papers today.
Best,
Jeff
Figures show state lost big on extra power
Posted at 9:53 p.m. PDT Monday, July 23, 2001
BY JOHN WOOLFOLK
Mercury News
State figures show California may have lost about $14 million this month
selling surplus electricity for less than it cost.
The Mercury News disclosed last week that some power was being sold at a
loss. But the new figures provide the first indication of just how much
excess power the state bought in its desperate effort to avoid blackouts --
and how cheaply some of that power was sold when it turned out not to be
needed.
A Republican lawmaker said Monday the loss also shows Democratic Gov. Gray
Davis' energy policies are needlessly costing consumers.
``This whole thing is a mess,'' said Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine, who
requested details of the state's surplus power sales. ``The government needs
to get out of the power business before it costs Californians even more
money.''
A state spokesman didn't dispute the $14 million figure outright but said it
is an approximation based on average prices and that the actual loss probably
is less.
``It's a number I'm sure he likes very much, but it's definitely an estimated
number, and it could be far lower,'' said Oscar Hidalgo, spokesman for the
state Department of Water Resources.
Campbell responded that the loss also could be higher.
The state has spent $415 million on power so far this month.
State officials last week confirmed that cool weather and consumer
conservation have left California holding more power than it needs. The
revelation was a stunning turnaround for a state that months ago was paying
top dollar for power, expecting shortages this summer.
Price that was paid
The state bought 3.5 million megawatt-hours of electricity for July at an
average price of $118 per megawatt-hour, according to a response Friday by
the Department of Water Resources to Campbell's inquiry. The state has sold
178,000 surplus megawatt-hours in July at an average price of $37, the
department said.
Based on those average prices, the state paid $21 million for the surplus
power, which it sold for $6.5 million -- $14.5 million less than it cost.
A more precise calculation of the state's loss is difficult because purchased
power is acquired at different times and prices and pooled as a
``portfolio.''
Purchases included long-term contracts that averaged $138 per megawatt-hour
as well as cheaper spot-market buys.
State officials last week said they were selling surplus at $15 to $30 a
megawatt-hour, while some traders cited unconfirmed sales as low as $1.
Hidalgo noted that the surplus sales represent just 5 percent of California's
July purchases, which totaled $415 million. The $6.5 million from sales will
help lower the state's power bill, he said, adding that utilities routinely
sell some extra electricity.
``Despite the fact that we're in somewhat of a surplus, any power-buying
operation in the world is going to have to plan for these types of
situations,'' Hidalgo said. ``It's not unique, and in fact it's normal
operating procedure for any utility.''
Other Western utilities, including Portland General Electric in Oregon, have
said they, too, are selling some surplus power at a loss and describe it as a
cost of doing business.
The suppliers buying the state's surplus electricity on the cheap include the
big out-of-state energy companies that the governor has called price-gouging
``snakes.'' Among them are Duke Energy, Dynegy Power and Marketing, El Paso
Power Services, Mirant, Reliant Energy and Williams Energy.
`Best bid' taken
Hidalgo said the state took the best offers it could find.
``It's only reasonable to get the best bid you can,'' he said.
Campbell said the $14 million loss is troubling because ratepayers or
taxpayers will have to cover the cost, whereas a private utility could be
forced to eat the expense if regulators determined it was unreasonable.
State officials say what's more important is that the overall cost of power
is dropping, from an average daily tab of $64 million in May to $25 million
this month, in part because the state has so much power.
Contact John Woolfolk at [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or (408) 278-3410.
=====================================
|
4,265 |
Subject: RE: Message on Behalf of Jan Smutny-Jones
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/494.
=====================================
Greetings:
?
Thanks for the responses I have received regarding the IEP policy/PR meetin=
g.=20
?Unfortunately, we must change the dates of the meeting due to a few=20
scheduling conflicts including the NCPA Annual Meeting. The new dates are=
=20
Monday, October 2 and Tuesday, October 3.?=20
?
Please respond with the names of who will be attending no later than Friday=
=20
September 22.=20
?
Let me know if you have any questions, I apologize for any inconvenience th=
at=20
this may of caused for you or your companies.
?
Thanks,
?
Katie Kaplan
Manager of Policy
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
[email protected]
?
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 3:57 PM
To: Stephanie Newell (E-mail); Sandi McCubbin (E-mail); Curtis Kebler; Dave=
=20
Parquet; Eileen Koch; Frank DeRosa; Greg Blue; Jim Willey; Kent Fickett; Ly=
nn=20
Lednicky; Randy Hickok; Rob Lamkin; Scott Noll; Susan J Mara; Trond=20
Aschehoug; Jeff Dasovich; Bill Carlson; Bill Woods; Bob Escalante; Carolyn=
=20
Baker; Cody Carter; Curt Hatton; Dean Gosselin; Doug Levitt; Duane Nelsen; =
Ed=20
Maddox; Ed Tomeo; Frank Misseldine; Hap Boyd; Jack Pigott; Joe Greco; Joe=
=20
Ronan; Jonathan Weisgall; Ken Hoffman; Marty McFadden; Milton Schultz; Paul=
a=20
Soos; Pete Levitt; Robert Frees; Roger Pelote; Steve Iliff; Steve Ponder; T=
ed=20
Cortopassi; Tom Heller; Tony Wetzel; Ward Scobee; William Hall
Cc: Julee Malinowski-Ball; Jan Smutny-Jones; Steven Kelly; Kelli Norton=20
[[email protected]]; Ray McNally; Karen Edson
Subject: Message on Behalf of Jan Smutny-Jones
Importance: High
?
IEP board members:
IEP is aggressively moving to refine its political and Public Relations=20
program for this fall and next year.? IEP must continue to be a leader in=
=20
developing workable solutions for California's energy crisis.? To do this w=
e=20
must continue to formulate solutions and then effectively communicate to=20
policy leaders.? There will be a two-day meeting on September 28-29 to=20
develop IEP's positions and communication plans.
The first meeting will be a?policy development meeting.? Persons attending=
=20
this meeting should be able to articulate your company's position on=20
solutions and issues as they are discussed.? If your company has position=
=20
papers available please provide those to Katie Kaplan ([email protected]) for=
=20
distribution.? The goal of this meeting is to agree on IEP's suggested=20
solutions to California=01,s problems and to develop answers to potential=
=20
allegations from ongoing investigations.
The second meeting will be with pr/political representatives of your compan=
y.=20
They will develop a communications and political plan based on?the solution=
s=20
and positions developed by the policy group.? Please send to this meeting=
=20
those individuals who will be the contact person for public relations effor=
ts=20
and be able to commit the company on the short notice, often required by PR=
=20
events.? Also send your Government relation=01,s spokesperson or your Sacra=
mento=20
lobbyist who is ready to develop and implement a political plan.
It might be helpful if your internal PR/Government relation=01,s person att=
ends=20
both meetings.=20
Please identify PR and political professionals from your company that will =
be=20
available to contribute to this effort; it is crucial that the decision=20
makers attend the meeting in order for the message to move forward in an=20
aggressive fashion.
The first meeting will be September 28-29 at the IEP offices in Sacramento.=
=20
Thursday September 28th, will be the Policy Development Meeting followed by=
a=20
working dinner with the Political/PR Group.? Friday morning the Political/P=
R=20
Group will continue discussions and conclude around noon. ?=20
Please reply with the name, e-mail and phone number if each person and whic=
h=20
group they will be participating in, no later than Thursday, September 20.=
=20
Materials, agenda and further information will be forthcoming next week.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter.
?
?
Katie Kaplan
Manager of Policy
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
[email protected]
?
=====================================
|
4,266 |
Subject: Dan Walters: Blame game over California's energy crisis will
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29068.
=====================================
Dan Walters: Blame game over California's energy crisis will continue for
years
(Published July 24, 2001)
The wrestling match between politicians and Enron Corp. moved into a more
intense arena over the weekend when a state Senate investigating committee
sought contempt penalties because the huge energy company has refused to turn
over internal documents.
Although Houston-based Enron owns no major power plants in California, it has
adopted the toughest stance of all energy companies against the multiple
investigations of why wholesale energy prices spiked so high. And it has
become, in turn, a whipping boy for California politicians.
At one point last spring, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he wanted
criminal charges against Enron and its chairman, Kenneth Lay. "I would love
to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a
tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey,' " Lockyer said. With
less colorful language, Gov. Gray Davis has often castigated Texas-based
companies as price gougers -- even though Texas firms have been fairly minor
suppliers to California.
Some of it is just buzzword politics. Lockyer and Davis know that
Californians dislike anything associated with Texas, and Lay has been one of
President Bush's major political supporters. Enron, meanwhile, cites the
rhetoric as evidence that Lockyer, Davis and legislative investigators are
interested less in finding the truth than in seeking scapegoats. Enron also
filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Senate's subpoenas of trading
data.
Most other energy companies have complied with the demands, creating
Sacramento repositories of the data under elaborate confidentiality
agreements worked out with the special Senate committee headed by Sen. Joseph
Dunn, D-Santa Ana. But Enron has refused, and on Saturday, Dunn submitted a
report asking the Senate for "an appropriate coercive sanction."
Does Enron have something to hide? Or does it sincerely believe that what's
happening in California is political scapegoating? Are the companies' fears
about the confidentiality of the data sought by the Senate justified? Would
data be selectively leaked to show the firms in the worst light? Would data
be used by competitors? Or could the information find its way into the hands
of class-action attorneys?
Dunn, a prominent trial attorney himself, insists that confidentiality will
be protected and that the information being sought is only for legislative
purposes. But Enron and the other companies have some reason to be wary of
turning over confidential information to politicians. Similar information was
leaked -- without penalty -- in last year's investigation of former state
Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush. And there are indications that
private lawyers are working closely with investigators.
Mike Aguirre, the San Diego attorney seeking a "smoking gun" to prove
collusion among energy companies, supplied Dunn's committee with a few
dissident Duke Energy workers who alleged, in highly publicized hearings,
that the firm had manipulated production at its San Diego plant to create
artificial shortages and drive up spot market power prices. Duke then refuted
the charges by releasing some excerpts from the records of the Independent
System Operator, the controller of California's power grid, indicating that
ISO had ordered the plant operational changes.
Aguirre subsequently asked the governor's office to pressure the ISO -- now
under Davis' direct control -- to release all of the Duke-related documents
that would show, he says, that the firm actually manipulated the situation.
Duke and other companies insist that the ISO-held documents are proprietary.
Aguirre pleaded with one Davis adviser in an e-mail that "we need your help
in properly getting this information out." But Aguirre, in an interview, said
he had not yet obtained cooperation from Davis aides.
The political and legal struggle to affix blame for California's energy woes
will continue for months, perhaps years. The crisis will cost ratepayers at
least $50 billion, and they'll want to know why as they make out their
utility bill checks.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
=====================================
|
4,267 |
Subject: Re: Activate.net Costing Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Billy Braddock/Enron Communications@Enron Communications', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/418.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 03/16/00 08:27 AM
-----
Paul Burkhart
03/15/00 09:39 AM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Re: Activate.net Costing Issues
----- Forwarded by Paul Burkhart/Enron Communications on 03/15/00 11:41 AM
-----
Merat Bagha
03/15/00 12:51 AM
To: Paul Burkhart/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Billy Braddock/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Matt
Harris/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: Re: Activate.net Costing Issues
Paul,
Thanks for your note.
A few comments that correspond to yours:
The DS-3 pricing is not material since it is only used for sending encoded
content to the EIN. It is not directly part of the Internet transit
proposal. We are awaiting a price from our provisioning group (who gets it
from other providers).
I am awaiting a proposal from a colocation provider at the Westin on pricing
for Activate.net. It is likely that we will NOT get involved and have the
customer work directly with this provider. As such, we should not have the
headache as well as the worry about pricing this element.
We would actually need fiber riser between our suite at the Westin and the
Meet-Me room at the Westin; not Gigabit Ethernet. No pricing at this point
but I would expect this to be $1K per month maximum
My estimate on the 6509's is $100K each installed for a total of $200K. For
a GSR, I would put this at $200K each for a total of $400K.
I am awaiting pricing from our provisioning folks for the dark fiber that
would allow us to run Gigabit Ethernet over this infrastructure. They are
working with Level-3. I have also asked for OC-12 pricing if we don't get
the dark fiber.
See response #4. The only difference is that we would need to pay Level-3
for a rack to be placed at their end for our equipment. Estimate for this is
$1K per month.
Pricing from L-3 for Internet transit is approximately $250 per Mbit per
month as measured on a 95% percentile. This might go down as you may have
heard from Dorn due to market conditions and our bulk buying power as well as
some price configuration changes by Level-3 (e.g., pay $200/Mbit/month based
on the higher of upstream or downstream measurements).
A Visio drawing, its equivalent bitmap rendering as well as an Excel
spreadsheet containing a very preliminary estimate of pricing is also
attached for your reference.
What has to be added as part of any pricing analysis is the IP & AFTS
transport that we might provide in the future to carry some of the traffic
outside of the Seattle-area because Internet transit there might not be
sufficient or too congested.
Matt and I will do more work on this proposal on Wednesday & Thursday and
will plan to keep you informed. Again, we owe a term sheet to the customer
later this week.
Merat
From: Paul Burkhart on 03/14/2000 04:34 PM CST
To: Merat Bagha/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Billy Braddock/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: Activate.net Costing Issues
Below are the Activate.net pricing elements we need for the economic model
that will be discussed during tomorrow's TDS (aka. Transaction Development &
Structuring) meeting at 11AM Pacific Time.
Local Loop Pricing (DS-3 from Activate.net to Westin)
Total cost of co-location at Westin
Gig Ethernet Cross Connect from Westin router to EBS router
Installed cost for 6509 Router and GSR 12012 Router at Westin; [WE NEED BOTH
ESTIMATES DEPENDING ON WHICH LOCAL LOOP IS AVAILABLE]
Local loop from Westin to L3 gateway (Gig Ethernet on dark fiber and OC12);
WE NEED BOTH ESTIMATES DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY]
Installed cost for 6509 Router and GSR 12012 Router at L3; [WE NEED BOTH
ESTIMATES DEPENDING ON WHICH LOCAL LOOP IS AVAILABLE]
Pricing of Internet transit from L3 [Allen Hill and I need to talk to Dorn
this afternoon and will address this pricing issue with him.]
Do you know if we will be able to have G Ethernet on dark fiber for local
loop from Westin to L3? I will look for the pricing elements tomorrow
morning and we can discuss when I call you tomorrow at 8:30AM Pacific Time.
Let me know if I can be of assistance in tracking down any of the information.
Thanks!
Paul
(713) 853-9557
=====================================
|
4,268 |
Subject: Pros & Cons of EES Filing Testimony in Rate Case
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11048.
=====================================
Jay --
I wanted to talk with first thing on Friday about our decision to weigh in
with testimony in this case. Forgetting the question Legal may or may not
have (let's assume they don't have any concerns) about Scott testifying, it
is still my opinion that we should not file testimony.
First, I assume that you have already marked your book to the Lynch
"thoughts" on rate design and revenue allocation included in the initial
Order. I make this assumption, because the loss to EES has already occurred
and our goal now is to try and bring back some of the value by (a) focusing
on revenue sharing and (b) rate design. Scott indicates that the loss could
be $100MM with bad outcomes on the 2 key issues. My purpose of EES' activity
is to try and minimize that number. I feel that a quiet but forceful role in
the case is the best vehicle given our recent troubles in CA and before the
CPUC.
Second, I am not sure that Govt Affairs is comfortable with Scott's model of
rate design. While tiering of rates is on the table, the question of demand
reduction payback under his framework could result in customers using 70% of
their load and paying nothing. That hardly makes sense. Now maybe we just
don't understand, but putting in testimony that is unclear or confusing isn't
going to win the day before the CPUC.
Third, most of our victory will come from aligning with the big users. If we
are supporting / defending our own testimony (which they haven't seen), I
think that our ability to work through a Settlement will be limited. Our
goal is to "pick and choose" from the best solutions proposed while trying to
highlight other options through cross-examination (granted, this may be very
hard).
Fourth, someone may try to get EES to weigh in on the allocation of these
costs to DA customers. We have agreed not to take on that issue. Scott
doesn't get to use the Fifth Amendment to not answer.
Scott and his team is preparing testimony. Give me a call. If Scott and you
are intent on moving forward, we'll do as you see fit within the other
constraints.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 04/12/2001
11:12 PM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner on 04/12/2001 05:58 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: pros and cons
Here is the list of pros and cons for Scott Stoness filing testimony in the
CPUC rate design case (testimony due tomorrow, hearing set to begin next
Monday). We have a call into Mike Smith to get legal's view.
Pros of filing testimony:
Getting out on the table a demand reduction program and a market-based
pricing mechanism
Favorable "strawman" proposal can move direction of CPUC decision in our favor
Insurance policy in case no one files a proposal we like
Can be withdrawn before hearing if we have other proposals we can support
Could give us leverage to participate in settlement negotiations
Easier to make case through direct testimony than on cross exam.
Cons of filing testimony:
We get in a position of having to defend our position and loose ability to
throw support behind other positive proposals (alone or in combination)
We open ourselves to cross examlination and discovery (Scott Stoness will be
supporting witness and could have information we would not want revealed).
Enron is not very popular these days and filing/testimony could fuel more
negative press
Additional Enron resources will be used (Scott's time, Tamara's time)
Market dysfunction may help ENA's position
Scott Stoness estimates that there is a $50 million risk if dollars are not
apportioned properly to each rate class, but this is an issue that a number
of parties will likely be addressing in their testimony. He estimates that
there is an additional $50 million at risk if CPUC's seasonal rate design is
adopted as opposed to his two-part real time pricing proposal. $100 million
potential loss if Lynch proposal does not solve the problem for the winter of
2001-2002 and anothe rate increase is needed in November.
=====================================
|
4,269 |
Subject: Client Opportunities with Pervasive Computing Companies
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/860.
=====================================
Where?s the opportunity for your company with the evolution of
pervasive computing? Who are the leading private company
contenders in this space? How are they managing the downturn,
and which ones look to have legs? What?s unique about their
technology and how does their value proposition sit with their
market? On December the 4 & 5, I hope you can join us to have
those questions answered. As a forum for assessing potential
clients it?ll be second-to- none. If you are still planning to
join the other leading investors and key executives, please be
sure to register at
https://secure.technologicpartners.com/pcoregister.asp today. A
key fact about the strong crop of private companies presenting
this year is that they?re the sorts of companies who helped
build the Valley in the first place, from the chipsets to the
applications that are making the vision of pervasive computing
increasingly a reality. Whether you call it pervasive, proactive
or ubiquitous computing, the best private companies that are
innovating this space will be there. Some seek partnerships now,
some later. Either way, if it?s new client opportunities you?re
looking for, the San Francisco Airport Marriott on December 4 &
5 is where you?ll find the key people building pervasive
technology companies. Take a moment to review the agenda and
companies slated to present at
http://www.pervasivecomputingoutlook.com
Building contacts with the people that matter
In this environment, establishing and building contacts in
technology sectors is still vital. As a VentureWire subscriber,
you also know that the value of the private company data and
information reported daily is unique. Pervasive Computing
Outlook provides the forum to bridge the gap ? allowing you to
make contact with the people that matter. VentureWire's data,
together with in-depth analysis and evaluation, have, I think,
ensured we've assembled a great list of CEOs who are building
companies which sell the technologies and services that will
deliver businesses and consumers the secure means to realize the
benefits of anytime, anywhere connectivity. They will be there
to tell us their stories and their plans for their companies.
There are some very interesting opportunities to be explored.
We've worked hard to collect the best out there for your review.
I hope you?ll agree. To find the companies together with their
links, goto http://www.pervasivecomputingoutlook.com/mmlist.asp
True business momentum? Proven leadership teams?
When you review the companies, you'll find they each demonstrate
specific qualities that suggest they have the best opportunity
to execute strongly. Whether it's WhereNet, whose President &
CEO, Dan Doles co-founded Red Pepper in 1993, and very recently
added Jaguar, Land Rover and Auto Alliance International, (a
Ford/Mazda joint venture) to their client list, or Matrix
Semiconductor, who have someone of the caliber of Dennis Segers
as their CEO since September, (following 2 years on their
board), we look for each participating company to exhibit true
business momentum. The goal is to cut to the chase and offer you
the most time-effective opportunity to talk to and review
worthwhile candidates.
How do you register your place?
I hope your schedule is still open for December 4 & 5. To
register your place, please take a moment to link to
www.pervasivecomputingoutlook.com and complete the online
registration form. Or, if you prefer, please call me on 212 343
1900 x 165. I look forward to hearing from you.
All the best,
Allan Cunningham
Managing Director
Pervasive Computing Outlook
212 343 1900
PS If you prefer NOT to receive updates about this event,
please reply with the word "remove" in the subject line.
Thank you.
Some companies presenting their plans:
Alchemy Semiconductor
Atheros Communications
AudioRamp
Avaki
BOPS
Broadband Home
Charmed Technology
Dejima
e-tel
EasyAsk
Embrace Networks
Equator Technologies
Extreme Devices
FlexICs
Home Director
Impart Technology
InfoMove
Ion Optics
Ipsil
Matrix Semiconductor
Nanomuscle
New Internet Computer Co.
OpenWebs
Phototablet
PlanetWeb
Quicksilver Technology
RadioFrame Networks
Rappore Technologies
ReefEdge
Resonext
RespondTV
Rioport
Sensoria
Silicon Wave
SkyCross
Televigation
Televoke
Tensilica
Time Domain
Transclick
Ubicom
Wherenet
Widcomm
XDegrees
Zeevo
=====================================
|
4,270 |
Subject: Testimony to Support the SoCalGas Settlement Agreement
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/488.
=====================================
To the Core Aggregator Group:
As you know, SoCalGas filed its formal gas industry restructuring settlement
agreement with the CPUC yesterday (April 17). Over the past two weeks, the
core aggregator group worked extensively with SoCalGas and the other
settlement parties to make sure that the settlement language tracked the
agreed upon principles that were included in the "term sheet" that was
filed with the CPUC on April 3. Based upon my review of the document, I
believe that the settlement agreement fairly reflects the deal that we
reached with SoCalGas.
The CPUC's Presiding Judge in the case - - Andrea Biren - - has established
the procedural schedule for an evidentiary hearing in this proceeding.
Under this schedule, prepared direct testimony (in support of the
settlement) is due to be submitted by May 5. Rebuttal testimony (opposing
the competing settlement that was filed by SCGC and TURN) is due to be
submitted by May 19. The hearing will begin on May 30.
In discussions with SoCalGas and the other settlement parties, it was agreed
that all of the industry groups that have participated in the SoCalGas
settlement should present testimony in support of the settlement. This
means that the core aggregator group (or individual members of the group)
should present one or more witnesses who can testify to the benefits that
the settlement will provide to the core aggregation program. This effort
must commence immediately in order to achieve a May 5 deadline.
I believe that it would be efficient for the core aggregator group (SPURR,
REMAC, CUB, Greenmountain.com, utility.com, United Gas, Enron, TXU, Shell
Energy Services) to jointly sponsor a single witness to testify concerning
all the benefits of the settlement for the core aggregation program. This
testimony would address the following features:
* Core interstate unbundling
* Core storage unbundling
* Unbundled (daily) balancing for core customers
* Unbundled core backbone transmission
* Avoided cost billing credits (and process to redetermine)
* Core brokerage fee (and process to reconsider role of utility's core
procurement department)
* Elimination of the cap on core customer participation in core
aggregation, and reduction of the threshold for core aggregation groups
* Elimination of core subscription gas sales option
If a witness is to be engaged by the group, this will need to be done very
soon. In addition, if the group wants to have one attorney
representing the group, this also should be decided very soon.
Alternateively, individual core aggregators may prefer to proceed on their
own.
I estimate that the fees for an outside expert witness to testify on the
above-referenced matters would be approximately $9,900. This
estimate is based upon an hourly rate of $180.00, and an estimate of 55
hours, as follows:
Activity
Hours
Draft prepared testimony and 25
(possibly) rebuttal testimony
Prepare for hearings, including 20
responses to discovery requests
and mock cross-examination
Hearing time 10
________________________
_____
TOTAL: 55
Hours
At $180 per hour, the expert witness fees would be $9,900. This does not
include "costs".
Our group should discuss, at the earliest possible time, how to proceed with
the presentation of prepared testimony. Please respond
promptly to this e-mail and provide your availability for a conference call
within the next two days to discuss this matter.
Thank you for your attention to his request.
- John Leslie
**************
CONFIDENTIAL
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
600 West Broadway
Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-3391
(619) 236-1414
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is
confidential and intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the
transmission. It may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or
dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. You are also asked to notify us immediately by telephone and to
return the original document to us immediately by mail at the address above.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
=====================================
|
4,271 |
Subject: Re: California Strategy RE: PG&E
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/729.
=====================================
Unless Chris tells me otherwise, we will continue what we've been saying in
California, but I think how we do that without individually naming the
utilities is pointing to what the "IOUs" are doing in general and clarifying
that the IOUs are making logical decisions in light of the mixed up
regulatory framework imposed on the market. That's how we said it at FERC.
Is that okay with you Chris?
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 09/29/2000 10:01 AM CDT
To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: California Strategy RE: PG&E
This mean we'll be toning down our criticism of the utility's behavior in the
California market in our filings at FERC regarding the price spike
investigation?
Mary Hain@ECT
09/28/2000 05:38 PM
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona Petrochko, [email protected]
cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: California Strategy RE: PG&E
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 09/28/2000 03:45 PM
---------------------------
Christopher F Calger
09/25/2000 08:00 AM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H
Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael McDonald/SF/ECT@ECT,
Laird Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: California Strategy RE: PG&E
Thanks Jim. ENA is very interested in this topic. I was talking with Mona
last week about my view that a strategy with PG&E should be supportive, not
adversarial. ENA is extremely interested in a gas management position with
PG&E and they have made it clear to us that our public positions against them
are a significant commercial issue. I will spend some time with Portland and
SF to get an ENA consensus on these points.
Chris
James D Steffes@EES
09/21/2000 09:28 PM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H
Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: California Strategy RE: PG&E
FYI.
If you are not aware, PG&E is pushing for immediate end of their retail rate
cap (so they can collect wholesale energy costs).
EES is considering its positions in that matter to prepare for CPUC and
legislative proceedings.
I want to make sure that you are aware of these internal discussions. Key
from EPMI include (1) endorse Cal ISO report conclusions, (2) competititve
default supplier, (3) increasing rate freeze for all customers, and (4)
transfer of PG&E Hydro to affiliate at $2.8B (to offset current
undercollection).
Please let me know if these positions make sense to you. While I think that
our general position is retail volatility, given the current situation in
SDG&E that is simply impossible politically.
Please feel free to call.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/HOU/EES on 09/21/2000
10:39 PM ---------------------------
From: Harry Kingerski@ENRON on 09/21/2000 03:54 PM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES
Subject:
I met with Dennis Benevides, Jim Wood and Scott Gahn about the PG&E strategy
we discussed and the EES perspective. Suggestions:
Endorse the recent CAL ISO report on causes of the problem (no utility
forward buying, no demand responsiveness, etc) and say, with a few tweaks,
their proposals were on target.
Get CTC roll-off no earlier than Spring '01. Retroactive roll-off would be
devastating.
Use PG&E $15 billion exposure as leverage to get competitive default supplier
in place (get them out of merchant supply).
Impose a stair-step shape on the rate increase, to prompt customer migration.
Keep PG&E somewhat at risk for wholesale cost recovery, delay recovery of
under-recoveries until out years.
Keep rate freeze (which is preferable to rate cap) to as short a period as
possible, post '01.
Here is a rework of Jim's bullet points to incorporate these thoughts:
Keep in mind the numbers are all just placeholders and are not meant to be
definitive. Once we start to hone in on the concept, we can develop the
right numbers.
From a retail perspective, this blends protection of the book with
advancement of new market opportunity. I may still get more feedback from
the EES guys, but wanted to give you what I got so far.
=====================================
|
4,272 |
Subject: Internet Daily for December 26, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1499.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Wednesday, December 26, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Sites tout strong online holiday sales
Yahoo says visitors spent $10.3 billion online in the fourth
quarter, beating analysts' expectations of 10% growth by more
than eight times. Sales volume during the period running from
Thanksgiving to Christmas Eve was up 86% compared to the same
period last year, said Rob Solomon, vice president and general
manager of Yahoo Shopping. He said bargain hunting was a major
driver this season -- and one to which his site is catering
after Christmas. Yahoo launched a post-holiday sales center
Wednesday morning, through which it will offer discounts of 50%
to 75% on items from Banana Republic, Old Navy and SonyStyle.
Yahoo will also open an Unwanted Gifts showcase on its auction
site. "Consumers can auction off their undesirable gifts and
shop for products they really want," Solomon said.
Separately, comparison shopping site BizRate.com's estimate of
online shopping was similar to Yahoo's. During the weekend
before Christmas, online shopping transactions were valued at
$345 million, a gain of 73% compared to last year, BizRate.com
said. Another interesting factoid: 52% of the shoppers were men.
Meanwhile, Terra Lycos said results of its online shopping
season confirmed early predictions that bargain hunting would be
in the forefront of consumers' minds were right on target. "The
tone and attitude of this season was different," said Kim Kluck,
group product manager for Lycos Shopping. Moreover, she said
there was plenty of evidence of cocooning. "The values of giving
and gathering, or keeping family close together and safe at the
holidays, emerged early," she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Media Metrix makes accuracy revisions
Web audience-measurement company Jupiter Media Metrix has
decided to separately report Web site visits generated by
pop-up, pop-under and other "involuntary" means. Previously, the
company's listings of Web properties included sites that use
such advertising techniques. The decision to include such
traffic in a new "promotional servers" category reflects
adaptation to "the evolving Internet landscape and industry's
needs," Media Metrix said. Sites in this category will not
appear in any of the company's other measured categories, but it
will include sites that sell email lists, opt-in email
providers, image servers and promotional links.
Media Metrix also said it would include elements of major portal
sites in its popularity ranking of Web sites by category of
content. This means traffic to the personal-finance, real-estate
and travel portions of AOL Time Warner's America Online,
Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, Yahoo and others will be reported as if
they were stand-alone properties in those categories. The reason
to do this, said Will Hodgman, president of the company's
measurement business, is demonstrated by the finding that AOL
properties ranked among the top 10 in 37 categories, while
Microsoft and MSN-branded components were in the top 10 in 30
categories, and Yahoo's placed in 10 of the top 30 as well.
"This will provide the most accurate snapshot and reliable
performance metrics to meet the needs of all companies with a
stake online," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For late-breaking market news you can't afford to miss, go to
http://CBS.MarketWatch.com/
================================================================
LOGIN to access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel. (0801-11478)
Copyright 2001 CBS MarketWatch. All rights reserved.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, printed or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.
=====================================
|
4,273 |
Subject: Dan Walters: As California's malaise deepens, Gray Davis' standing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1351.
=====================================
Dan Walters: As California's malaise deepens, Gray Davis' standing plummets
(Published Oct. 7, 2001)
A year ago, Gray Davis was riding high -- because Californians were prosperous, confident about their future and thus supportive of the political status quo.
Davis' high approval ratings had little to do with his actual performance, or any personal affection among Californians for their cool and distant governor. He was just the fortunate beneficiary of good times and good feelings.
Today, a dark cloud has descended on the state. A sharp decline in the economy, particularly high-tech sectors, a stubborn energy crisis and, most recently, the terrorist hijackings and murderous crashes of California-bound airliners have left Californians worried about their personal safety and economic security, and they're looking for someone to blame.
Davis' approval ratings began to decline early this year as the energy crisis hit home and it became apparent that he had failed to take the initiative in heading off the worst aspects of the situation. And they have continued to sag, thus presenting the governor with a series of interlocking tests as he begins his campaign for re-election in 13 months.
The seriousness of Davis' decline was underscored late last month in a statewide Field Poll indicating that, at the moment, most California voters would prefer former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to Davis. History indicates that Davis should still be favored to win a second term, but if Riordan does become the Republican candidate, he would have at least an outside chance of unseating Davis.
Davis' chief problem is that he will be running for re-election in what will almost certainly be sharply declining economic circumstances, the product of a slowdown already under way and the plummeting consumer confidence in the wake of the terrorist hijackings. State tax revenues are in a nosedive, running a billion dollars under projections in the first three months of the fiscal year, and Davis will be compelled to make multibillion-dollar slashes in state spending that will irritate important constituent groups.
How big the state budget hole will become is anyone's guess. There's a distinct tendency for state revenues to plummet far faster and further in an economic downturn than official forecasts, just as they rise faster and higher in a recovery than the bean counters project. Some analysts believe that Davis' problem could rival the $14 billion deficit that predecessor Pete Wilson confronted in 1991. Wilson swallowed hard and agreed to the largest state tax increase in American history.
However large the state's fiscal problem may be, it will be much, much larger if the state money Davis spent on power purchases this year cannot be recovered from a proposed bond issue. And the $12.5 billion bond issue is on indefinite hold because the Public Utilities Commission, consumer groups and Pacific Gas and Electric are opposing the administration's demand that past and future power purchases be covered by ratepayers without review.
It's apparent now that the long-term contracts the administration signed are much too expensive, which is why Davis' own appointees to the PUC are balking. Davis could try to renegotiate the contracts, but that would be admitting that he and his advisers erred in the first place. Or he could accept the Legislature's proposal, contained in legislation on his desk, that only past power purchases be guaranteed and that future contracts be subjected to the scrutiny that private utilities' purchases must receive. But Davis is insisting that he'll veto the measure.
The effect of the current flap over bonds and power contracts, as well as Davis' months-long effort to provide a bailout for financially strapped Southern California Edison, and his lackadaisical performance earlier in the energy game, will undermine the governor's claim for a second term. He comes across as someone who dithered when he should have acted, and signed too-expensive contracts even as the power market was contracting. That, and Californians' increasing apprehension about their future, will make his re-election a much dicier prospect than he had envisioned.
_____
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
=====================================
|
4,274 |
Subject: Re: PLAN: SUNDAY 5PM IN SF AT JEFF'S OFFICE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Dennis Sidbury/PAMG/Prudential@Prudential', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__quant/17.
=====================================
Here's my stab at the problem set....
(See attached file: Tp#1_1.xls)(See attached file: TP#1_2.xls)(See attached
file: Tp#1_3.xls)
Carolyn Vavrek <[email protected]>
Friday April 14, 2000 06:10 PM
To: [email protected]
[email protected]
cc: Dennis Sidbury/PAMG/Prudential@Prudential
[email protected]
Subject: PLAN: SUNDAY 5PM IN SF AT JEFF'S OFFICE
Just got off the phone with Jeff
Hope this works for all
FULL TEAM:
Sunday 5pm
Enron office
101 California Street
Suite 1950
Jeff's work #782-7822
Jeff's pager #888-916-7184
enter on California street side, ring buzzer, guard will answer, Jeff
will be in lobby waiting or have guard call his office
JEFF, DENNIS, CAROLYN:
Sunday 9:30am - 11:30am (Yikes!)
Jeff's office
blah, blah, blah
Carolyn's contact info
cell: 415-613-8967
home: 415-285-7385
see you on Sunday
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: E204 - Group assignment
Author: [email protected] at Internet-USA
Date: 4/14/2000 4:35 PM
Yes, based on previous notes, I'd assumed we were trying for Saturday or
Sunday evening. Seems like folks had landed on Sunday. I have a "family
thing" that I need to do from noon to 4 pm on sunday (or I will be a social
outcast for the rest of my life)--apologies. So anytime before 11:45 AM or
after about 4:45 on Sunday works great for me. Hope that's not a problem.
Best,
Jeff
Patrick Bukowski <[email protected]> on 04/14/2000 10:45:00 AM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: Dennis Sidbury <[email protected]>
cc: Carolyn Vavrek <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: E204 - Group assignment
Hey guys,
I think we got our wires crossed. I was talking to Jeff and Shawne last
night about
meeting at Jeff's office either Sunday morning or late afternoon. I'm
willing to go
anywhere, anytime, but I don't think this will work for Jeff.
Pat
Dennis Sidbury wrote:
> I House - 2:00pm - Sunday.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Carolyn Vavrek <[email protected]>
> Wednesday April 12, 2000 01:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> cc: (bcc: Dennis Sidbury/PAMG/Prudential)
> Subject: Re[2]: E204 - Group assignment
>
> I agree with one correction: Dennis, Jeff and I will all lead 1 AND
3.
> Perhaps the three of us can get together before Sunday or on Sunday
> am before we meet with Pat and Shawne to work though both those
> problems.
>
> Jeff and Dennis: sound reasonable?
>
> All: time to meet on Sunday? Place?
>
> Suggestion: I-House in Berkeley at 2pm
>
> - Carolyn
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: RE: E204 - Group assignment
> Author: [email protected] at Internet-USA
> Date: 4/12/2000 2:46 PM
>
> Sorry, I've been out of the discussion. Carolyn, Dennis and myself
> talked
> yesterday and felt that it would be useful if we all worked on the
problems
> in the following way:
>
> Problem #1: Carolyn and Jeff
> Problem #2: Pat and Shawne
> Problem #3: Dennis
>
> Where the people named "take lead" on the problems. We try to identify
any
> questions that we will have by class time tomorrow and ask the professor
> questions as needed. On Sunday, we meet and finish up and loose details.
>
> Does this work for everyone?
>
> -- Shawne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Bukowski [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 11:13 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: E204 - Group assignment
>
> I'm available for either 6:30 or 8:30. I'd also like to attend the job
fair.
>
> Pat
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Did we plant to meet after the jobs fair, or before, or both? I'm
flying
> > in from Houston and can likely make it to Haas by 6:30. Carolyn, sorry
> for
> > the bother, but could you leaveme a voice mail at 415.782.7822 and let
me
> > know what time so I can zip right over from the airport. Thanks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
- Tp#1_1.xls
- TP#1_2.xls
- Tp#1_3.xls
=====================================
|
4,275 |
Subject: FYI - LA Times story on sales tax increase
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1477.
=====================================
Sales Tax to Rise by a Quarter of a Cent
Finance: A 1991 law triggers a reduction in good times and kicks it back up
during slowdowns. The state deficit means a higher rate on Jan. 1.
By JULIE TAMAKI
TIMES STAFF WRITER
November 1 2001
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Gray Davis' administration is expected to confirm today
that state sales taxes will rise next year by a quarter of a cent, a
development eagerly awaited by Republicans who want to make taxes an issue
in next year's elections.
A 1991 law enacted by Davis' Republican predecessor provided that in good
times--when the state budget surplus tops 4% of the general fund for two
years straight--the state sales tax automatically drops by one-fourth of 1%
for one year. That reduction kicked in for the first time in January.
Now the year is almost up, and state finance officials must determine by
today whether the higher rate will reappear next year. Their decision,
however, is a foregone conclusion, because there is no surplus, lawmakers
already have approved a budget that counts on the additional tax money and
state revenues are running more than $1 billion below projections. The sales
tax rate throughout nearly all of Los Angeles County will rise to 8.25%. The
rate in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties is expected to climb
to 7.75%. Sales tax in Ventura County is expected to increase to 7.25%.
Even with the hike, which will take effect Jan. 1 and add roughly $1.2
billion to California coffers in 2002, the state's budget deficit for the
fiscal year is projected to be $8 billion to $14 billion.
The tax is a political headache for Davis, who took credit when the tax rate
fell in January. That was due, he said, to his administration's commitment
to fiscal responsibility in addition to the strong economy.
Republican lawmakers, who fought this summer to maintain the lower rate,
blame the uptick on deficit spending by their Democratic counterparts.
"The budget the governor signed spent over $79 billion when we were only
taking in $75 billion," Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho
Cucamonga said. "This is why the quarter-cent tax is triggering back on."
Republicans contend California taxes are set to rise just as federal
lawmakers contemplate an economic stimulus package that has Washington
Republicans pushing for steep tax cuts.
"We ought to be generating an economic stimulus that is complementary to
what is being done on the federal level," Assembly Republican Leader Dave
Cox of Fair Oaks said.
GOP candidates running for state offices next year will be encouraged by
party leaders to raise the tax increase as an issue in their campaigns, said
James Fisfis, a spokesman for Cox.
"We expect candidates to talk about it, particularly as the economy
continues to slump," Fisfis added.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Steve Peace, an El Cajon Democrat, lauded
the trigger that controls the tax as the best way to allow voters to hold on
to a portion of a large budget reserve when times are good. When times are
tough, the trigger causes the tax to reappear.
"It's exactly how Pete Wilson designed it to work," Peace said.
The issue of stimulating the economy is clearly a sensitive one for Davis.
On Wednesday, administration officials held a teleconference with reporters
to trumpet financing by the state's Infrastructure Bank to help a biomedical
center in San Francisco double in size. Davis did not participate but said
in a recorded message that the project shows that the state is helping to
spark the economy and create new jobs in important fields.
Davis is scheduled to convene an economic summit of California business
leaders and politicians Friday at the Walt Disney Co. movie studios in
Burbank. The governor has warned most state agencies to prepare for 15%
budget cuts, imposed a hiring freeze and ordered a $150-million reduction in
state spending in the current fiscal year.
A budget deal struck earlier this year between Republicans and Democrats
presumably made it easier for a quarter-cent tax cut to kick in by requiring
the state finance director to determine two things: The reserve at the end
of the fiscal year must be at least 3% of general fund revenues, excluding
money generated from the quarter-cent sales tax, and general fund revenues
from May to September must exceed the forecast, which they have not.
=====================================
|
4,276 |
Subject: Calif. Gov. set to sign bill to cut power rates
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1022.
=====================================
UPDATE 2 - Calif. Gov. set to sign bill to cut power rates
(UPDATE: Changes lead to add comments from Gov. Davis spokesman)
By Nigel Hunt
LOS ANGELES, Aug 31 (Reuters) - California Gov. Gray Davis will sign
emergency legislation to cut electricity rates in San Diego where a tripling
in customers' bills this summer has sparked a public outcry, his spokesman
said on Thursday.
The bill was passed by the California Assembly by 58 votes to 14 late
Wednesday. It needed 54 votes to secure the necessary two-thirds majority of
the Assembly's 80 members required for emergency legislation.
``He is in favour of the Alpert/Davis bill. If he gets the bill next week I
suspect he will sign it sooner rather than later,'' said Davis' spokesman
Steven Maviglio, noting however that he was reserving judgment on a linked
measure to provide up to $150 million in state funds to help fund the price
cut.
The bill was passed by the state Senate on Tuesday. It is sponsored San Diego
Democrats state Sen. Dede Alpert and Assemblywoman Susan Davis.
Under rules governing the deregulation of California's power industry,
customers of Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE - news) unit San Diego Gas and Electric
are the first to pay free market rates without a safety net.
When California deregulated its power markets, rates were initially frozen
for customers of the state's three investor-owned utilities. The rate freeze
was lifted for San Diego Gas and Electric customers last year.
Rates for the state's other two investor-owned utilities, San Francisco-based
PG&E Corp. (NYSE:PCG - news) subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric and
Rosemead-based Edison International (NYSE:EIX - news) unit Southern
California Edison, remain frozen.
The proposed legislation establishes a 6.5 cent per kilowatt hour cap on the
cost of energy for ratepayers, less than a third of the the current ``free
market'' cost of 20.8 cents. The cap would be retroactive to June 1, 2000.
Under the bill, the difference between rates paid by customers and the higher
market-based rates would initially be footed by the local utility, San Diego
Gas and Electric, which would create a ``balancing account.'' The shortfall
would then be recouped from customers at a later date.
San Diego Gas and Electric spokesman Doug Kline said the utility was urging
Davis to veto the legislation.
``It is a well intentioned, but seriously flawed bill. It is like ordering a
shopkeeper to buy a loaf of bread for $2 and sell it to customers for 60
cents,'' he said.
The bill would cap prices through December 31, 2002 although the rate ceiling
could be extended through December 2003 if the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) finds that it is in the public interest.
Kline said the utility has estimated the under-collected shortfall would
amount to around $726 million by the end of 2002. If it were extended for
another year that shortfall would climb to around $1 billion, he noted.
He said the bill, if approved, would impact the utility's credit ratings.
Wholesale prices in the state soared to record levels this summer and as San
Diego residents saw their bills skyrocket. There were reports that some
pensioners were even turning off their refrigerators in a bid to keep their
power costs down.
The CPUC, which regulates the state's power markets, held an emergency
meeting last week and voted for a partial cap which limited bills for
customers for their first 500 kilowatt hours per month of use.
But a plan for more extensive relief along similar lines to the Davis/Alpert
bill was defeated in a vote that split along political lines.
It has been estimated that the plan approved by the CPUC would result in a
much smaller shortfall of about $77 million.
The three commissioners who were appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a
Republican, backed the more modest relief plan, while the two appointees of
Davis, the current Democratic governor, sought more extensive rate cuts.
California's power problems are caused partly by increased demand 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.
=====================================
|
4,277 |
Subject: Re: NEW DIAL-IN INFO FOR FERC MTG TODAY
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3987.
=====================================
Lys,
re: the note about using a conference room here to utilize only one port:
both of our conference rooms here are monopolized as well, so perhaps
Sue & Jeff can "double up" in one of their respective offices, okay?
Thanks,
Joseph
Lysa Akin@ECT
04/25/2001 11:24 AM
To: Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron, Rebecca
W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES,
Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES,
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT
cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Bernadette
Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cindy Derecsky/Corp/Enron, Debra
Davidson/PDX/ECT@ECT, Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron
Subject: NEW DIAL-IN INFO FOR FERC MTG TODAY
I have reset the call referenced below as follows:
Date: TODAY. Wednesday, 25 April
Time: 2:00pm Pacific / 4:00pm Central / 5:00pm Eastern
800#: 888/422-7128
Participant #: 546778
Bernadette: You will dial in as host from the DC office. Your Pin # for the
call is: 914013
Joseph: It would be helpful if a conference room is used, so that only one
port is occupied on the call.
Alan - Please come see me re: meeting space in Portland - no rooms are
available.
---------------------- Forwarded by Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT on 04/25/2001 11:25 AM
---------------------------
Lysa Akin
04/25/2001 07:55 AM
To: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT, Joseph
Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Important - Time Change for FERC Meeting Today
I have set a conference call number so that parties outside of the DC office
can listen to the FERC Meeting now scheduled at 11:00am Pacific/2:00pm
Eastern.
Details of the call are as follows:
Date: TODAY, Wednesday, 25 April
Time: 11:00am Pacific / 1:00pm Central / 2:00pm Eastern
800#: 888/380-9636
Participant #: 546778.
Bernadette: You will dial in as host from the DC office. Your Pin # for the
call is: 914013.
Joseph: Please pass this information to anyone in your office that would like
to participate.
It would be helpful if a conference room is used, so that only one port is
occupied on the call.
Alan: I have reserved the MT. ADAMS conference room in Portland for this
call.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Lysa
503/464-7927
---------------------- Forwarded by Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT on 04/25/2001 07:57 AM
---------------------------
Alan Comnes
04/25/2001 07:44 AM
To: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Important - Time Change for FERC Meeting Today
Bernadette,
Please set up the call so that it starts at the beginning of the meeting, 2
p.m. EDT. (That way DC folks can dial-in near the TV so others can listen).
I suggest scheduling the call for 3 hours to allow a discussion afterwards.
Also, please copy Lysa Akin on the call in info.
Thank you,
Alan Comnes
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT on 04/25/2001 07:49
AM ---------------------------
Linda J Noske
04/25/2001 07:37 AM
To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron,
Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jess
Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron,
Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Cindy
Derecskey/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Important - Time Change for FERC Meeting Today
Update: Per Bernadette Hawkins, a dial in number is being set up for this
meeting and will be sent via e:mail to everyone.
Per Jim Steffes, the time has changed for the above referenced meeting from
10:00 a.m. (DC time) to 2:00 p.m. (DC time). Please mark your calendars and
pass this information on to anyone not listed above who also needs to be
notified.
Thank you so much!
=====================================
|
4,278 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #28
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12774.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW052101.doc>>
Summary:
1. IPPs Rise 4.6% Last week our IPP composite closed up 4.6%,
outperforming both the NASDAQ (+4.3%) and the S&P 500 (+3.7%). NRG Energy
and Mirant Corp. were the strongest performers in the group, rising 8.0% and
7.9%, respectively. International Power was the weakest performer, falling
1.2%.
2. Mirant Shines at Analyst Meeting The major event last week was Mirant's
analyst meeting on Monday and Tuesday (5/14 and 5/15). Following the
meeting, we raised out target price to $62 from $48. We left the meeting
with 3 major conclusions: 1) The whole is greater than the sum of the MWs;
2) Mirant is executing; 3) Mirant is undervalued. We believe investors have
overlooked the value in MIR's integrated asset/trading and marketing energy
merchant platform by solely focusing on the company's power generation
business. MIR clearly represents one of the best values in the IPP group.
The stock is trading at 23.9 times our 2001 EPS estimate, which represents a
14% discount to the IPP group average of 27.8x.
3. President's "Free Market" Based Energy Plan Positive for IPPs On
Thursday (5/17), President Bush presented the framework of a comprehensive
national energy plan that emphasizes more supply, efficiency, fuel
diversity, and conservation. To the extent the plan emphasizes "free
market" approaches to solving the nation's energy shortages, we regard it as
positive for the Independent Power Producers. The plan resists calling for
interventionist measures, such as price caps, to mitigate high wholesale
power prices. In addition, the report attributes the California power
crisis to poor public policy and a fundamental supply/demand imbalance. It
does not embrace the theory, put forth by many local California politicians,
that power generator market manipulation and price gouging gave rise to the
situation.
4. NERC Releases Summer Assessment Report On May 15, the North American
Reliability Council (NERC) published 2001 Summer Assessment Report. NERC
believes that going into the Summer most regions of the US have adequate
generation resources to meet demand, barring a major heat wave or an
unplanned outage of a large plant. However, the study finds California and
the Northwest to be major areas of concern. Further, the report cites
Texas, New England and New York City as areas that should be closely
watched.
5. Looking Ahead: Brazilian Government to Announce Measures to Increase
Power Supply This week the Brazilian government is expected to unveil a
series of proposals to stimulate generation supply, which should include the
removal of regulatory obstacles to new investment. We believe this
announcement will be positive for AES Corp. shares. Recently, management
indicated it would suspend nearly $2 billion of planned Brazilian generation
investments due to regulatory issues that have impeded AES's ability to
finance these investments. The removal of these project financing
impediments would result in an important growth opportunity for the company.
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.
- IPW052101.doc
=====================================
|
4,279 |
Subject: RE: Studies of market power in California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2472.
=====================================
Here is the paper I mentioned earlier.
Seab
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 12:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Studies of market power in California
Seabron,
I have not seen it. Can you forward a copy? Thanks,
Alan Comnes
"Seabron Adamson" <[email protected]> on 12/12/2000
09:41:53 AM
To: <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Studies of market power in California
Alan/Jeff:
Just in case you haven't seen it, there is a new paper out from someone at
Berkeley (Steven Puller?) on California market power issues. It seems to
make some pretty strong statements re: market power over the previous
years.
If you haven't seen it let me know and I can email you a .pdf version.
All the best,
Seab
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
Seabron Adamson
Frontier Economics Inc
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Ph: (617) 354-0060
Fax: (617) 354-0640
[email protected]
www.frontier-economics.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 8:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Emprical Study on High Prices
Attached is a paper that was filed at the FERC by Paul Joskow and Ed Kahn.
I assume it was attached to SCE's comments in the FERC price caps
proceeding.
This study appears to be the most definite analysis so far of the question:
did market fundamentals or generator market power cause the price run-ups
this summer? Joskow/Kahn conclude that although much of the run up was due
to gas prices and NOx costs, that the market was unworkably competitive;
i.e., the cost run ups do not fully explain the price run ups. Further,
they provide what they claim is evidence that individual generators
withheld this summer.
Joskow/Kahn state: "Moreover, there is considerable empirical
evidence to support a presumption that the high prices experienced in the
summer of
2000 were the product of deliberate actions on the part of generators or
marketers
controlling the dispatch of generating capacity to withhold supply and
increase market
prices." Biggest withholders in their analysis are: AES/Williams, Reliant,
and Dynegy
Marketer/traders are largely but not completely spared criticism in their
analysis. Joskow/Kahn recommend that FERC staff undertake a study of the
entire WSCC data to "Determine the role of marketers in the production and
bidding behavior of the California generators." and to find out more why CA
imports fell.
It will be interesting to see how the CA generators react to this study.
My initial read is that this is will be received as an important,
influential work. It will fuel the fire for more information release,
especially by the UDCs and CA regulators--at least release of physical
operational data.
I would be interested in your reaction to the study. In terms of potential
criticisms: I noticed that their gas prices might be low (used monthly
average data rather than daily). They also did not account for generator
marginal profit or margin recovery to account for possible outages and
noncontiguous schedules. Finally, they do not examine the benefits that
would have accrued had additional capacity come on line.
Alan Comnes
(See attached file: Joskow Kahn Paper 11_21.pdf)
- Puller California market power paper.pdf
=====================================
|
4,280 |
Subject: ISO To Participate in Super Peak Market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/828.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 08/29/2000 10:32
AM ---------------------------
Gary Ackerman <[email protected]> on 08/26/2000 04:21:58 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: Bill Ross <[email protected]>, Bob Anderson <[email protected]>,
Carolyn Baker <[email protected]>, Corby Gardin
<[email protected]>, Curtis Kebler
<[email protected]>, Denice Cazalet <[email protected]>, Gene
Waas <[email protected]>, Greg Blue <[email protected]>, Jack Pigott
<[email protected]>, Ken Czarnecki <[email protected]>, Kent
Wheatland <[email protected]>, "Klemstine, Barbara A(F56661)"
<[email protected]>, Randy Hickok <[email protected]>, Rob
Lamkin <[email protected]>, Rob Nichol <[email protected]>,
robert berry <[email protected]>, Roger Pelote <[email protected]>, Sue Mara
<[email protected]>, curt hatton <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
<[email protected]>, Dan Douglass <[email protected]>, Al Parsons
<[email protected]>, Bob Reilley <[email protected]>, Brian Jobson
<[email protected]>, Dave Nuttall <[email protected]>, Edmond Chang <[email protected]>,
Ken Lackey <[email protected]>, Linda Hamilton
<[email protected]>, Mark Tallman <[email protected]>,
"Richard H. Counihan" <[email protected]>, Sheryl Lambertson
<[email protected]>, Steve Fisher <[email protected]>, Steve
Ponder <[email protected]>, Tom Breckon <[email protected]>, "Wolfe, Don -
PGSO-5" <[email protected]>, Chuck Goligoski <[email protected]>,
Elaine Walsh <[email protected]>, Duane Nelsen <[email protected]>,
Reggie Howard <[email protected]>, Tim Belden
<[email protected]>, Dave Francis <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: ISO To Participate in Super Peak Market
Folks,
Late Friday afternoon Ziad called me. The ISO Governing Board earlier
the same day turned down the ISO management's request to force SCs to
place 95% of their scheduled load in the DA market. That leaves the ISO
little choice but to venture into the energy markets to procure power to
cover their peak hours on hot days.
Terry gave Ziad the OK to proceed with placing both the APX and
California PX screens for this new product/matching-service. I am
working with the two vendors and the ISO to make this happen quickly.
We anticipate that the market will open on Tuesday, September 5, or
earlier.
Key people who you may need to contact:
ISO - Ziad Alaywan 916-351-2140 (Nancy Traweek and Jim McIntosh are
also in the loop)
PX - Ken Czarnecki 626-537-3123
PX - John Yurkanin 626-537-3124
APX - Denice Cazalet 408-517-2123
APX - Michael Heinrich 408-517-2159
Please feel free to contact me with your questions. Several of you have
not had the opportunity to attend the pre-design meetings we had at the
California PX and APX a few weeks ago, nor were you aware of the joint
WPTF/ISO meeting held last week. But in essence, what this
product/matching-service will allow you to do is post bids to sell, or
buy a 6-hour block of capacity at a firm energy price across the hours
of HE13 to HE18. You can bid at COB, Mead, PV, SP15 or NP15. You can
utilize either the CalPX or APX to post your bids, because the ISO will
be watching both screens. The block sizes are (supposed to be) 25MW.
The seller is responsible for arranging transmission to the delivery
point, and the buyer (e.g., ISO) is responsible for arranging
transmission service from the delivery point. The ISO will make its
purchase decisions for the day-of at or before 8:00 a.m. The ISO will
send out a general notice when it needs offers to sell on the super-peak
market. I expect that bids for either buy or sell will be able to be
posted at any time, 24 hours. The screens should allow parties to post
buy or sell bids at least 60 days forward of the trade day.
You are not limited to a price cap in these markets, but the ISO as a
buyer has the right to not purchase at prices above it's price cap.
I think WPTF members should be very proud that we were able to quickly
work together, and with the ISO to create this market. I have no doubt
the ISO will be offering bids to purchase starting Sept 5, and going
forward 60 days. However, who among you will be willing and able to
post bids to sell?
gba
=====================================
|
4,281 |
Subject: [Fwd: Information Update on Perix]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8971.
=====================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Information Update on Perix
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:02:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Good day all:
I want to update you on some events regarding Perix. I have tried to
contact them today via telephone, web site and email and I'm not having
any
luck. I presently don't know if they are in business or been bought out
by
another firm or what.
The Web Site I tried: perixindustries.com connects me to another firm
SRS
Consulting.
Email address: [email protected] gives the following error "This is
not a
known member"
Telephone number 714-923-2612 and fax number 714-923-2601 are
continuously
busy.
If you have the correct contact numbers, please let me know.
Some history:
Oct 4, 2000, Chairman of the Board for Perix Industries, Mr. James E.
Reinmuth stated in an email, "I will personally commit to the
preparation of
a Perix newsletter within the next 60 days which summarizes the results
of
negotiations with several potential joint venture partners, and our
plans for
Year 2001."
I have received no information. Mr. Reinmuth's letter was in direct
response to the concern raised by several shareholders on the lack of
information on our investment. If anyone has received the newsletter,
please
email me and I'll forward a check to you to mail me a copy.
Nov 8, 2000: Letter sent to Perix Industries by attorney Zachary A.
Wright
of Short, Cressman & Burgess, PLLC on behalf of myself requesting
financial
information of Perix.
As per Mr. Wright, I quote the following, which was sent to Perix in
the
letter:
QUOTE
California corporations are required by law to make certain
information
available to shareholders. First, an annual report must be provided to
shareholders within 120 days of the end of the corporation's fiscal
year,
unless this requiremetn is waived by the corporation's bylaws.
Cal.CorpCode
1501(a). Even if the requirement is waived, the corporation must
provide a
year-end financial report to a shareholder within (30) days of the
shareholder's request for it. Cal.CorpCode 1501(c). This year-end
financial
report must contain a balance sheet and an income statement, as well as
a
statement of changes in financial position for the fiscal year. It must
be
accompanied by a report of the corporation's independent accountants or,
of
there is no such report, a certificate signed by an authorized officer
of the
corporation that the statements were prepared accurately and completely
from
the books and records of the corporation. Second, California law
requires
that corporations make available to shareholders "accounting books and
records" of the corporation, as well as the minutes of any proceedings
of
shareholders, the board of directors or committees of the board of the
corporation. Cal.CorpCode 1601. This definition encompasses all books
of
account, accounting journals, share registers or duplicate share
registers.
We hereby demand that you copy and mail to us the information that
must be
made available to Mr. Remijan under California law no later than thirty
(30)
days from the date of this letter.
UNQUOTE
My attorney or I have not received any word or information from
Perix
regarding this request for financial information. Mr Wright advises
that I
could file a lawsuit for a writ of mandamus or other order to obtain
this
information from Perix. California law Cal.Corp.Code 1603 and other
applicable law also provides for payment of all costs and attorneys'
fees by
the corporation in the event that the shareholder is required to file
suit to
obtain the information.
If anyone has further information about whether Perix is still in
business, I would appreciate an email. Something tells me that it
doesn't
look good for us. I hope that I am wrong.
Thanks and best regards,
Mark Remijan
[email protected]
206-782-3278
=====================================
|
4,282 |
Subject: Fwd: Calif. Assembly approves $13.4 bln power bond sale
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]', 'Andrea Settanni', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12154.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 08:51:33 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]>, "Andrea Settanni"
<[email protected]>, "Charles Ingebretson"
<[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman" <[email protected]>,
"Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Dan Watkiss" <[email protected]>,
"Gene Godley" <[email protected]>, "Kimberly Curry"
<[email protected]>, "Michael Pate" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox"
<[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. Assembly approves $13.4 bln power bond sale
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
FYI
Calif. Assembly approves $13.4 bln power bond sale
Monday, May 07, 2001 11:18 PM ET
(updates with vote, quotes from governor, treasurer)
By Joshua Chaffin
SACRAMENTO, Calif., May 7 (Reuters) - The California Assembly approved a plan
Monday to sell $13.4 billion in bonds to pay for electricity during the
state's power crisis, marking what would be the biggest municipal bond issue
in U.S. history.
The bill, approved 49-29, now moves to the Senate for a concurrence vote. But
the state cannot sell the bonds until at least August because lawmakers
Monday were short -- by five Republican votes -- of the two-thirds majority
needed to pass the measure as emergency legislation that would have taken
effect immediately.
Gov. Gray Davis blasted Republicans for "playing partisan politics" with an
energy crisis that threatens the world's sixth biggest economy.
California's power purchases have drained the state treasury of some $6
billion, spurring state officials to warn that the nation's most populous
state risks costly financial ratings downgrades and could see funding shut
off for important programs such as health or education.
The bond issue is intended to pay the state back, with the debt to be paid
off over 15 years through a portion of Californians' monthly power bills.
"
The Assembly Republicans' refusal to support emergency legislation puts the
state's fiscal integrity at great and continuing risk, and does great serious
harm to essential services from education to public safety to health care,"
State Treasurer Phil Angelides said in a statement.
Now Angelides -- who wanted to issue the debt by June -- will have to wait at
least 90 days for it to take effect as regular legislation. Senate President
John Burton said the upper chamber would take up the measure no later than
Thursday, before handing it on to Davis.
Assembly Republicans refused to support issuing so much debt and instead
proposed a more limited bond proposal that used the state's budget surplus to
pay off power purchases.
"This is a blank check drawn on the ratepayers' accounts," Assembly
Republican Mike Briggs said in a statement.
Still, authorizing the bond amount is a step toward ensuring a $5 billion
bridge loan aimed at helping the state weather the energy crisis until the
treasurer can issue the debt.
"It would have been preferable to have had this done on an urgency basis,"
said Assemblyman Fred Keeley, a Democrat who has taken on a leading role
during the energy crisis. "It would have sent a more confident message to the
Street. Our choice was do it on this basis or do nothing."
The state's power crisis stems from a bungled 1996 deregulation plan that
allowed wholesale electricity prices to soar but capped retail rates. The
result has brought a spotty power supply, rolling blackouts and forced the
state's biggest utility into bankruptcy protection.
The state legislature earlier this year approved issuing at least $10 billion
in debt to pay for emergency power purchases.
That plan, however, tied the bond amount to the California Procurement
Adjustment, a formula that divided revenues from consumers' electricity bills
between the state and its two biggest utilities.
When PG&E (PCG, news) Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric challenged the CPA in
bankruptcy court last month to demand a bigger slice of the pie, the bond
sale was effectively scrapped -- leaving officials and lawmakers scrambling
both to come up with a total amount and to authorize Angelides to issue bonds.
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.
=====================================
|
4,283 |
Subject: FW: "Independent" ISO never sent bill to CDWR.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/72.
=====================================
This is inbelievable. Will FERC pay attention now?
-----Original Message-----
From: Hall, Steve C.
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:34 PM
To: Yoder, Christian; Comnes, Alan; Mara, Susan
Subject: "Independent" ISO never sent bill to CDWR.
Calif DWR Hasn't Received Any Invoice From ISO For Power Updated: Friday, September 7, 2001 05:57 PM ET
By Mark Golden
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The California Department of Water Resources has never received an invoice from the California Independent System Operator for power purchased on behalf of the state's insolvent utilities, DWR spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said Friday.
Between the middle of January, when Gov. Gray Davis ordered the DWR to start paying for ISO power purchases and May 31, the ISO has procured about $3.3 billion in power on behalf of California's cash-strapped utilities, PG&E Corp.'s (PCG </investments/quotes/?symbol=PCG>, news </investments/news/?symbol=PCG>, msgs </investments/discuss/?symbol=PCG>) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Edison International's (EIX </investments/quotes/?symbol=EIX>, news </investments/news/?symbol=EIX>, msgs </investments/discuss/?symbol=EIX>) Southern California Edison, according to the ISO.
None of that power has been paid for, according to the ISO, as previously reported. The ISO and DWR have been negotiating the procedure for settling the accounts, but sellers to the ISO have been complaining that it shouldn't take eight months for the state agencies to get payments flowing.
"Until we get a bill that we can account for, we can't write a blank check and send it out. We haven't even received an improper bill," said Hidalgo.
The ISO was unable to comment immediately on whether it has sent a bill to the DWR for power purchased on behalf of the utilities. The ISO has said previously that it can't supply all the information the DWR wants without violating its own confidentiality rules.
The Independent Energy Producers Association, which represents many of the suppliers to the ISO, said this week the ISO market is on the verge of collapsing. Merchant power companies in California, such as Dynegy Inc. (DYN </investments/quotes/?symbol=DYN>, news </investments/news/?symbol=DYN>, msgs </investments/discuss/?symbol=DYN>) and Mirant Corp. (MIR </investments/quotes/?symbol=MIR>, news </investments/news/?symbol=MIR>, msgs </investments/discuss/?symbol=MIR>) continue to sell to the ISO, as ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The ISO, which has ultimate responsibility for avoiding blackouts, ensures there is exactly the right amount of power on the state's transmission lines to meet demand at all times, which requires constant buying and selling of electricity.
In mid-January, after the state's two main utilities ran out of cash, an executive order from Davis - backed by state law passed in February - authorized the DWR to pay for any purchases the ISO needed to make for the utilities.
"There is no bill. I don't know as a government agency how the process of payment for a significant amount of money - over $1 billion - would be in anybody's mind as a possibility," Hidalgo said.
The DWR, which has paid more than $9 billion for power it has bought from suppliers directly since January, has set aside money to pay for the ISO's last-minute purchases.
The ISO considers the entire $3.3 billion unpaid, though DWR operations chief Pete Garris said earlier this week that DWR may have paid a majority of that bill directly to power suppliers. The DWR has set aside about $1.25 billion to pay suppliers once it receives a detailed bill from the ISO that meets DWR requirements. Other procedural problems have prevented the DWR from making payment. The DWR wants to pay suppliers directly, which Garris said the ISO is uncomfortable with.
The ISO declined to discuss this direct-payment issue. ISO market rules require that buyers pay the ISO, which, in turn, pays sellers.
The FERC has ordered the ISO to stop buying power on behalf on parties that aren't creditworthy, specifically Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Edison. PG&E has said that it continues to receive bills from the ISO, and has been told the bills are for informational purposes only.
-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>
=====================================
|
4,284 |
Subject: DON'T BLAME DEREGULATION FOR SUMMER'S `BROWNOUTS'
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/california_crisis__press/3.
=====================================
Editorial
DON'T BLAME DEREGULATION FOR SUMMER'S `BROWNOUTS'
THE ECONOMIST\
?
09/05/2000
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
FINAL
B7
(Copyright 2000)
?
?
This has been a miserable summer in California. Thanks to a surge in
electricity consumption, Californians and other Americans have endured
several power failures.
Since brownouts were rare in the past, some wonder if recent steps to
liberalize the power market are to blame. Politicians are meddling,
arbitrarily imposing rate freezes and price caps. This week President Bill
Clinton offered federal subsidies to poor people and small firms hit by
higher power prices in California.
?
A growing chorus is arguing that electricity deregulation has gone too far
and too fast. The problem is just the opposite. The real culprits behind this
summer's power failures are the muddle and hesitation surrounding the
introduction of competition in much of America.
In places such as Britain, Scandinavia and Australia, which began
liberalizing long ago, the transition to competitive power has been orderly
and free of mishap; consumers there enjoy reliable power, lower prices and
better service.
California's deregulation has failed to yield such gains largely because it
neglected a variety of market realities.
Companies will invest in generation only if the rules of the game are clear.
In America, they seldom are. That is partly because of the country's federal
structure, which has left the states to take the initiative in electricity
deregulation.
About half have opened up their markets, but each has its own peculiarities.
This patchwork, plus changing environmental regulation, explains why so many
utilities have avoided building new plants for years.
State governments should base reforms on clear and consistent rules. The
federal government also needs to bring order to interstate power trading.
Regulators must break the monopoly of the aging and overloaded distribution
system.
Merely generating more power at big central plants far from markets means
little unless it can reach consumers - and bottlenecks on the grid mean that
not enough of it does. Expanding distribution capacity is often impossible in
crowded urban areas, and elsewhere people dislike new power lines.
Dramatic advances in technologies such as fuel cells and microturbines, which
generate power efficiently and cleanly on a smaller scale, may make up the
shortfall. But regulators still tend to imagine that power will flow in one
direction only: from big plants to small consumers.
To ease the bottlenecks, they should follow the recent move by New York state
to facilitate access to the grid for small micropower plants.
The other area of reform is the hardest but also the most crucial: the
consumer market.
In the long run, liberalization and competition will deliver lower
electricity prices for companies and households alike. However, in many
places, retail prices remain fixed by government fiat.
There is a case for protecting domestic households from price volatility
until a genuinely competitive retail market emerges. However, the zeal with
which politicians have introduced arbitrary price "rollbacks" suggests that
they may turn any exception into the rule.
This would be a mistake, for unless consumers see fluctuations in prices
(especially at peak times), they have no incentive to conserve power or shift
their use off-peak.
The right way forward is to allow retail prices to fluctuate with market
conditions. This will encourage consumers to use power more judiciously and
speed the arrival of such innovations as fixed-price "energy service"
contracts, which promise outcomes such as certain levels of heating, rather
than merely delivery of a set amount of electricity.
Price transparency will also allow micropower plants to buy and sell power on
the grid as demand dictates, so improving the grid's reliability.
In fits and starts, America is heading toward the promise of competitive
energy markets. Consumers in Pennsylvania, for example, now pay $3 billion a
year less for their electricity than they did before 1999.
The populism and shortsightedness of its regulators and politicians must not
stop California from getting there, too.
Copyright 2000 Economist Newspaper Ltd. Distributed by the New York Times
Special Features.
Drawing
=====================================
|
4,285 |
Subject: NEWS: Windfall Profits Tax Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11996.
=====================================
* published by Caltax Online
* http://www.caltax.com/
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 05/03/2001=
=20
10:04 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 05/01/2001 05:50 PM
This is?coverage that will appear in the next Caltaxletter, relating to th=
e=20
latest development of?the windfall profits tax legislation:??
?WINDFALL PROFITS TAX ON ENERGY PRODUCERS HITS SENATE FLOOR?
Majority Democrats muscled n?electricity =01&windfall profits=018 tax bil=
l to the=20
Senate floor on Monday when the Appropriations Committee approved SB 1X=20
(Soto), imposing a 100 percent excise tax on sales of electricity to=20
California that exceed $80 per megawatt hour.
With Senate President Pro Tem John Burton leading the charge, the fiscal=
=20
panel approved the bill on a party-line 7-3 vote.??
Opponents testified that the bill would have a perverse result by=20
discouraging investment in new energy generation in California despite a=
=20
consensus over the need for additional power plants to add more electricit=
y=20
and rein in the costs.
=01&While it makes good political theater, this bill does absolutely nothi=
ng to=20
solve the energy crisis,=018 said Mike Kahl, representing the Western Stat=
es=20
Petroleum Association and alternative energy providers. He said such a=20
=01&confiscatory tax sends a perverse message=018 to investors in electric=
ity=20
generation to avoid California. He also said it is a =01&transparent attem=
pt=018=20
to enact illegal price regulation of interstate commerce.
Carrie-Lee Coke of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association=
=20
said the bill is the =01&wrong medicine,=018 would worsen the energy crisi=
s by=20
reducing supply, and would cause =01&financial disaster=018 for CMTA membe=
rs.
Carl London, representing InterGen, an international energy generator, sai=
d=20
SB 1X will scare away investment in badly needed power plants. =01&I can s=
ay=20
with all certainty that the prospect of having this bill hanging out there=
=018=20
will cause InterGen to stay away from California, he said.=20
Senator Burton said the bill =01&says you can=01,t come in and rip us off.=
It=20
doesn=01,t say you can=01,t come in and do business.=018??
Senator Jack Scott, principal co-author of the bill, said, =01&We have bee=
n=20
royally mistreated=018 by energy providers headquartered in other states t=
hat=20
have =01&gouged us like no consumer has been gouged in history.=018 He sai=
d the=20
bill still =01&guarantees a generous profit for wholesalers.=018??
Revenue from the tax would be returned to California through income tax=20
rebates. Since none of the revenue goes into the state=01,s general fund a=
nd=20
would be returned to taxpayers, proponents contend that the revenue-neutra=
l=20
bill can increase a tax by mere majority-vote approval of the Senate and=
=20
Assembly, not the two-thirds majorities required for tax increases in the=
=20
state Constitution. Cal-Tax has long disagreed with this interpretation.?
Supporters of the bill included Toward Utility Rate Normalization,=20
representing =01&small=018 ratepayers; the public-employee financed Califo=
rnia Tax=20
Reform Association; the California Public Interest Research Group; the=20
California Labor Federation and the Service Employees International Union.=
?
When Senator Jim Battin noted that the bill would impose windfall profits=
=20
taxes on energy contracts negotiated by the Davis Administration (at $86 p=
er=20
megawatt hour), Senator Scott agreed to amend the bill to exempt existing=
=20
contracts.?
While Governor Gray Davis has indicated support for a windfall profits tax=
,=20
his Department of Finance had no position at Monday=01,s hearing. A=20
spokesperson said there was no analysis from the Franchise Tax Board on th=
e=20
impact on state revenues. The department also noted that a company would=
=20
have to have nexus (physical presence) in California to be taxed, so at=20
least some of the wholesalers could be immune. The department also express=
ed=20
concern about how poor people would benefit if they don=01,t earn enough t=
o=20
file income tax returns.??
Co-authors Nell Soto and Scott accepted a number of amendments suggested b=
y=20
committee staff.?
?
?
?
?
- e-alert3.gif
=====================================
|
4,286 |
Subject: Re: FERC Hearing in Boise
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10939.
=====================================
Jeff--I neglected to include your outside lobby team on this e mail, so you
may want to forward to them as well.
----- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron on 04/10/2001 11:50 PM -----
Susan M Landwehr
04/10/2001 11:07 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: FERC Hearing in Boise
Jeff--you did such a good job that I don't have to type much. I do have a
few other thoughts to share that may be helpful for the California folks.
The format, although somewhat informal, had a court reporter present and
transcripts will be published. Each state was invited to have 2
representatives and one of the 2 had to be a Commission member. Opening
comments were taken from each state and then specific topics were discussed.
Herzberg participated primarily in the opening discussion.
He came across as very sincere---indicated that they were working "around the
clock" to take care of their problems, but that they cannot do it alone. He
asked for FERC to help get Califonia to "stabilization" and specifically
asked FERC for three actions: an 18 month temporary price cap on
electricity, an 18 month temporary price cap on natural gas prices and to
prohibit any withholding of pipeline capacity to California.
He was treated very respectfully (which was not as evident in the comments
to Commissioner Brown), and I think he did his cause some good. Much more so
that in other venues when I've seen other reps from Davis's office speak.
Breathitt came to California's defense at some point in the discussion.
Commissioner Brown did his share of ranting about EVERYBODY knowing that
market manipulation is taking place and that the bastards were going to pay
for their misdeeds (ok..he didn't use those words, but his message was clear)
Lastly, the Chair of the Montana was the most vocal and honest in his
comments to the California partcipants stating, in part, "why should Montana
ratepayers be taking the hit because California didn't build power plants."
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/10/2001 09:05 PM
To: Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: FERC Hearing in Boise
Forgot to send the darned thing to you! Sorry.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/10/2001 09:04 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/10/2001 05:28 PM
To: [email protected], Scott Govenar <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected],
[email protected], Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Donna
Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: FERC Hearing in Boise
Greetings:
Sue Landwehr will be sending around a more comprehensive summary of what
happened at today's FERC hearnig in Boise but asked me to pass along the
following.
Each state was only allowed to have two people at the table. For California
it was Assembly Speaker Hertzberg and Geoff Brown (newly appointed CA PUC
Commissioner).
Hertzberg did a credible, matter-of-fact job of explaining what California's
doing to resolve the crisis (nice to know that there's someone out there who
can explain what the heck California's doing). Hertzberg then asked that
FERC do "its part" by imposing price caps in Western wholesale markets.
Hertzberg didn't mention the PG&E bankruptcy or Davis' deal with Edison.
Overall, the "no price cap" message won the day (though Breathitt seems to be
under considerable pressure to give in to caps).
The Governor of Arizona (Jane Hull) had a staffer deliver a letter signed by
9 republicant governors opposing price caps. Sue will be distributing the
letter.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,287 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11967.
=====================================
Dan Walters: Davis plays in a virtual world while the energy reality continues
(Published July 11, 2001)
California still has a very real and very severe energy crisis, to wit:
The state is still running up massive debts as it pays more for power than it
can recover from ratepayers and is having trouble borrowing billions of
dollars to cover the debt.
There is a strong possibility, perhaps a probability, that when summer's heat
truly descends, there will be severe power blackouts as air conditioners
demand more juice than California can generate or buy.
One major utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, has filed for bankruptcy
protection and a second, Southern California Edison, is on the brink of
joining it.
There is, however, a virtual energy crisis consisting of political spin,
media leaks and made-for-television buzz words -- and it is rapidly becoming
dominant, while the real situation fades into the background.
This week's comic opera proceedings before a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission administrative judge in Washington had little to do with reality
and everything to do with the virtual version.
Gov. Gray Davis and other officials demanded $8.9 billion in refunds from the
generators and brokers who have been selling California power for the past
year, alleging that California is, in Davis' words, "being gouged and ripped
off." But the number itself was more or less plucked out of thin air -- an
arithmetic exercise by the state power grid's traffic controller not intended
for a refund proceeding. And while Judge Curtis Wagner saw it as unrealistic,
Davis and other state officials insisted on its validity.
"There are refunds due that total hundreds of millions of dollars and maybe a
billion dollars," Wagner said as a final negotiating session collapsed. But
that's a far cry from the $8.9 billion that Davis insists is due. "If you
think California is going to settle for $1 billion in refunds, we will see
you in court," Davis said Tuesday.
Why is Davis being so belligerent? Because it's good politics. Ever since he
began berating out-of-state generators and accusing them of ripping off
California, Davis' approval ratings have been climbing. If he settled for
substantially less -- the power generators probably would agree to a couple
of billion dollars to rid themselves of the matter -- Davis would be
embarrassed. Politically, he's served by continuing to portray himself as
fighting for California and against the out-of-state generators.
That it's more political construct than reality is indicated by another event
this week, Davis' release of state power purchase data from early in the year
-- numbers that were made public only because a judge told him he had to do
it.
Davis and his minions have been accusing Texas-based generators and power
brokers of particularly egregious price gouging -- clearly playing on
Californians' instinctive mistrust of anything Texan and implying that Texan
George W. Bush is a co-conspirator. But the power purchase records -- which
were released only to journalists willing to pay a stiff fee -- indicate that
less than 10 percent of California's power purchase dollars were going to
Texas and the private sellers, in general, charged the state less than such
publicly owned utilities as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
The clearly adverse position being taken by FERC and the purchase data that
undercut his jingoistic sloganeering are not, however, deterring Davis from
continuing to operate, at least for public consumption, in the melodramatic
virtual world.
One cannot, however, ignore reality forever. The likelihood of a
pro-generator decision from FERC means that there will be no easy out for
Davis, or for his pending deal to prevent Southern California Edison from
slipping into bankruptcy court. The Legislature has refused to act on the
Edison rescue plan while it awaited an indication of whether the utility's
debts would be slimmed down by FERC.
This week's farcical events make it more likely that the Edison deal will
stall out permanently in the Legislature and its creditors will force the
utility into bankruptcy court later this summer. That's part of that nasty
old reality that cannot simply be wished away.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected]
.
=====================================
|
4,288 |
Subject: FW: FW: CA ISO Mtg
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/439.
=====================================
Is EES or ENA planning to attend the ISO's vendor fair and stakeholder
meeting mentioned below?. Gov Affairs was not planning on it unless one of
you need us to go and we'll see if we can fit it in. As you can see, one of
our cusomters is asking about it.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 09/14/2000 12:21
PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Nieland/HOU/EES@Exchange on 09/12/2000 07:03 PM
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, John Wack/HOU/EES@EES,
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
cc: Chris Holmes/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: FW: FW: CA ISO Mtg
IBM has requested feedback from EES concerning the subject ISO meeting
described below. Are any of you or your staff attending the meeting? If
not, do you know of anyone else within Enron who is attending? Please advise.
Thanks
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Gaillard,Bruno
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 11:56 AM
To: Nieland, Jeff
Cc: Mara,Susan; Dasovich,Jeff; Petrochko,Mona
Subject: Re: FW: CA ISO Mtg
Jeff,
I will not be attending the meeting. I suspect someone in our office will
attend the meeting. I will ask Jeff Dasovich, Sue Mara, and Mona Petrochko
whether or not they will attend and make sure they get in touch with you.
From: Jeff Nieland/HOU/EES@Exchange on 08/30/2000 09:02 AM CDT
To: Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: CA ISO Mtg
Bruno,
Hope all is well. I again would appreciate your insight. Do you know if we
are participating in this meeting? If so, who is attending? Please point me
in the right direction.
Thanks
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]@ENRON@EES
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 1:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CA ISO Mtg
Jeff, will Enron be attending this meeting? IBM would be interested in
receiving a report from this event. We would also like to discuss
potential impacts/options for our CA sites. Thanks.
The ISO will be hosting a Participating Load Stakeholder
meeting on September 20, 2000 at the ISO. The meeting is a broad
stakeholder meeting to help refine our load participation programs for
2001.
Much of the day will be committed to presentations and discussions on
lessons learned from 2000 and proposals for 2001, including technical
standards, contractual issues, and load management.
Some vendors have approached the ISO with systems that would
aggregate loads, give them an opportunity to curtail based on day ahead
energy prices, and provide the curtailment instructions and verifications.
This type of program may be ultimately sold to ESPs or IOUs. In order to
accelerate the testing of such systems the ISO may sponsor a pilot program
to test the system/approach with selected vendors. The pilot program will
test the concepts, the interfaces, and assist in bringing together vendors,
ESPs, SCs, and the IOUs as we move forward toward improving demand
responsiveness in our markets. We have reserved about 1 -2 hours in the
afternoon, to allow 3-4 vendors to present their approaches to the
stakeholder group.
In addition, we welcome you to visit a vendor fair that the
ISO is hosting on September 21, 2000. The ISO has experienced
considerable interest from the market place in such a vendor fair that
would
include entities providing Data Processing Gateway technology for both
Generators and Loads in the Participating Ancillary Services Load Program.
This effort is being encouraged to develop multiple solutions pertaining to
installations of direct telemetry for Generators and Load providing
Ancillary Services to the ISO markets.
The agendas are attached for both events, including
directions and lodging information.
Please RSVP by September 13, 2000 to Sue Happ at
[email protected].
Thank you.
<<AGENDA 9_20_00_timelines3_.doc>> <<AGENDA 9_21_00_timelines3_.doc>>
<<Lodging and Directions.pdf>>
Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager: 916/814-7352
alpha page: [email protected]
e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>
Greg Peterson, P.E.
Global Energy Sourcing
Global General Procurement
P: (919) 543-4002 T/L 441
F: (919) 543-1119 T/L 441
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,289 |
Subject: Dan Walters
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11714.
=====================================
Dan Walters: Blame game over California's energy crisis will continue for
years
(Published July 24, 2001)
The wrestling match between politicians and Enron Corp. moved into a more
intense arena over the weekend when a state Senate investigating committee
sought contempt penalties because the huge energy company has refused to
turn over internal documents.
Although Houston-based Enron owns no major power plants in California, it
has adopted the toughest stance of all energy companies against the
multiple investigations of why wholesale energy prices spiked so high. And
it has become, in turn, a whipping boy for California politicians.
At one point last spring, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he wanted
criminal charges against Enron and its chairman, Kenneth Lay. "I would love
to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a
tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey,' " Lockyer said. With
less colorful language, Gov. Gray Davis has often castigated Texas-based
companies as price gougers -- even though Texas firms have been fairly minor
suppliers to California.
Some of it is just buzzword politics. Lockyer and Davis know that
Californians dislike anything associated with Texas, and Lay has been one of
President Bush's major political supporters. Enron, meanwhile, cites the
rhetoric as evidence that Lockyer, Davis and legislative investigators are
interested less in finding the truth than in seeking scapegoats. Enron also
filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Senate's subpoenas of
trading data.
Most other energy companies have complied with the demands, creating
Sacramento repositories of the data under elaborate confidentiality
agreements worked out with the special Senate committee headed by Sen.
Joseph Dunn, D-Santa Ana. But Enron has refused, and on Saturday, Dunn
submitted a report asking the Senate for "an appropriate coercive
sanction."
Does Enron have something to hide? Or does it sincerely believe that what's
happening in California is political scapegoating? Are the companies' fears
about the confidentiality of the data sought by the Senate justified? Would
data be selectively leaked to show the firms in the worst light? Would data
be used by competitors? Or could the information find its way into the hands
of class-action attorneys?
Dunn, a prominent trial attorney himself, insists that confidentiality will
be protected and that the information being sought is only for legislative
purposes. But Enron and the other companies have some reason to be wary of
turning over confidential information to politicians. Similar information
was leaked -- without penalty -- in last year's investigation of former
state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush. And there are indications
that private lawyers are working closely with investigators.
Mike Aguirre, the San Diego attorney seeking a "smoking gun" to prove
collusion among energy companies, supplied Dunn's committee with a few
dissident Duke Energy workers who alleged, in highly publicized hearings,
that the firm had manipulated production at its San Diego plant to create
artificial shortages and drive up spot market power prices. Duke then
refuted the charges by releasing some excerpts from the records of the
Independent System Operator, the controller of California's power grid,
indicating that ISO had ordered the plant operational changes.
Aguirre subsequently asked the governor's office to pressure the ISO -- now
under Davis' direct control -- to release all of the Duke-related documents
that would show, he says, that the firm actually manipulated the situation.
Duke and other companies insist that the ISO-held documents are proprietary.
Aguirre pleaded with one Davis adviser in an e-mail that "we need your help
in properly getting this information out." But Aguirre, in an interview,
said he had not yet obtained cooperation from Davis aides.
The political and legal struggle to affix blame for California's energy woes
will continue for months, perhaps years. The crisis will cost ratepayers at
least $50 billion, and they'll want to know why as they make out their
utility bill checks.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or [email protected]
.
=====================================
|
4,290 |
Subject: RE: QF Presentation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/728.
=====================================
Great questions. Some brief responses. We can discuss further tomorrow.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Beach [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:55 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Re: QF Presentation
Jeff --
As always, your proposal is creative. After reviewing your presentation,
here are some tough questions that we can discuss tomorrow:
1. Would the replacement energy from the market be obtained under
contracts of similar length and firmness as the QF contracts that the energy
replaces? If not, why would the CPUC want to replace long-term, committed
QF power with short-term firm energy?
WOULDN'T HAVE TO, BUT PRESUMABLY THE REPLACEMENT POWER WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY MORE "DISPATCHABLE."
2. Why would the CPUC want to replace long-term QF power over which it
has substantial regulatory leverage (through SRAC pricing) with market
energy from sources over which it may have less control?
PRICES WOULD BE FIRM AND WOULD REDUCE POWER COSTS TO CONSUMERS SUBSTANTIALLY AND AVOID THE PROTRACTED, COSTLY LITIGATION THAT GOES ON INCESSANTLY BETWEEN EDISON AND QFS. (AND WOULD AVOID ALMOST LOSING THE QFS BASED ON CONTINUED NEGATIVE ACTIONS BY EDISON.) IN SHORT, ENDING THE HOLY WARS IS A GOOD THING.
3. Are there 8,000 MWs of low-cost replacement energy available in
California, or in the WSCC with firm transmission to California? How steep
is the supply curve for replacement energy?
FORECASTS SHOW ONE HELLUVALOT OF POWER COMING ON LINE. HOWEVER, IF THERE WERE CONCERNS, THE MWS COULD BE CAPPED.
4. After a QF is bought out, I assume that it would simply operate in the
electric market as a merchant plant, if it continues to operate to provide
on-site power and thermal energy. Is this correct?
YES.
5. How sensitive are your calculated ratepayer and QF benefits to changes
in the relationship between SRAC (i.e. gas) and electric market prices?
OBVIOUSLY, VERY CONNECTED.
6. Assuming that there are both ratepayer and QF benefits from QF
contract buyouts, why is there a need for a formalized auction process, when
the same benefits might be captured through bilateral negotiations (such as
the QF buyouts done to date)?
BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE A MYTH. THIS TRIES TO GET AROUND THAT IMPASSE.
7. Doesn't your proposal require the utilities to be back in the power
procurement business? If not, why not?
THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND NO MORE THAN THEY WOULD BE OVER THE LIFE OF THE QF CONTRACTS.
As you perhaps can tell, my questions focus on whether now is the right time
for such a broad plan to buyout QF contracts.
THERE ARE ALWAYS REASONS TO CONCLUDE THAT NOW IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT. AND IF A QF HAS THE OPTION OF 1) RECEIVING THE NPV OF THE QF AND 2) RETAINING CONTROL OF THE ASSET, I'VE STRUGGLED MIGHTILY TRYING TO FIND A DOWNSIDE FOR THE QF. LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TOMORROW.
Talk to you tomorrow,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: QF Presentation
Tom:
Here's the presentation that we'll go over with you tomorrow.
If you have any questions between now and then, just give me a call at
415.782.7822.
What number should I call you at tomorrow?
Best,
Jeff
> <<QF Auction General.ppt>>
>
>
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,291 |
Subject: Special Offer for VentureWire Subscribers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28683.
=====================================
-----"Easily the most serious, well-run and
-----informative technology venture conference
-----series you can attend"
-----Technologic Partners' Outlook Conference attendee,
-----June 2001
Dear Jeffrey:
As a VentureWire reader, you know that the internet has
become an essential component of everyday life for both
businesses and consumers, despite recent investment
challenges. Though some dot-commerce plays face market
disfavor and wary private and public investors,
internet-based technologies and business models that
demonstrate a defensible ROI are still making real money.
And advances in internet technologies are almost
exclusively the domain of the venture backed start-up.
Read on, or take a moment to link to the URL below for
more details. VentureWire subscribers have a preferred
rate* for this conference - $1795 - which represents a
$400 saving on the full list price. All you need do is
register before July 27th, 2001 and ensure you enter the
code VWIO at the bottom of the registration form.
Internet Outlook
September 10-11, 2001
San Francisco Airport Marriott
Burlingame, California
http://www.internetoutlook.net/docs/register.asp
At this, the 6th annual running of Internet Outlook,
we've assembled the most promising providers of
the technologies that improve the performance,
functionality and ROI of web sites, applications and
data centers. Each year we've focused on the sectors
and issues driving the internet's technology and
investment train. And this year's no different. Join
us in Burlingame for another packed event on
September 10-11 and meet the entrepreneurs, investors
and industry executives setting the pace and offering
very real opportunities for liquidity events when the
market turns up.
After significant research and analysis, we've invited
up to 100 of the hottest emerging tech companies in the
following categories to define their goals, plans and
progress to the audience:
Content Management
Customer Interaction
Data Centers
Information Management
Managed Service Providers
Messaging Infrastructure
Personalization/Privacy
Sales & Marketing Services
Security
Network Applications
eComm Services
Web Services/XML
Web Performance
Website Analysis
For a list of presenting companies, check out:
http://www.internetoutlook.net/docs/mmlist.asp
Leading business, technology and investment opinion
and expertise from leading key note speakers and
panelists will be the centerpiece of our general
sessions. I must thank the following for accepting
our invitation to deliver keynote addresses over the
course of Internet Outlook - their remarks will be
eagerly anticipated:
Roger S. Siboni
President & CEO
E.piphany
Martin Brauns
President & CEO
Interwoven
Amnon Landan
Chairman, President & CEO
Mercury Interactive
John Seely Brown
Chief Scientist, Xerox
and
Chief Innovation Officer
12 Entrepreneuring
For a complete review of the agenda, please link to
http://www.internetoutlook.net/docs/agendamonday.asp
All our events this year have bucked the trend, and
filled up - in this, its sixth year, initial trends
indicate Internet Outlook promises to do the same.
To make sure of your place, and claim your VentureWire
preferred rate, please take a moment to access the
following link. Do not forget to enter the VWIO code
on your registration.
http://www.internetoutlook.net/docs/register.asp
So, I hope September 10th and 11th works for you. It
would be great if you could join us - in the meantime,
if you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Allan
Allan Cunningham
Managing Director, Events
Technologic Partners
[email protected]
212-343-1900
If you'd prefer not to receive such messages from us,
follow this link:
http://venturewire.com/[email protected]
and we'll make sure you don't in the future.
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
-------------------
Your registration to VentureWire included granting us
permission to send you information about new features
and other products from Technologic Partners. We are
committed to protecting your privacy.
VentureWire and Internet Outlook are trademarks and
service marks of Technologic Partners, L.P.
* This special offer is only valid for VentureWire
subscribers and is non-transferable. If you have
already registered prior to receiving this offer,
credits or refunds will not be given. It cannot be
combined with any other offer.
=====================================
|
4,292 |
Subject: Cal. Update 7/30/01 - Direct Access
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29213.
=====================================
Executive Summary
? Direct access could make a rescue of SoCal Edison more difficult
? Bond issuances for California may be in jeopardy as direct access becomes
more popular with municipalities
Municipal Power is Politically Attractive
There is growing pressure across California for cities to consider forming
their own municipal power companies. Community leaders across the state are
enviously eyeing the success of Sacramento's SMUD utility and the Los Angeles
Municipal Power Utility, where rate hikes and service disruptions have been
far less pronounced than the rest of the state. Several leaders in San
Francisco are considering setting up their own power company, and another two
dozen cities are also contemplating action. Municipal power companies are not
subject to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission, and
could therefore sidestep the current proposed structure of rate hikes.
Trying to stop municipalities from opting out of the state power plans will
be extremely difficult, as it runs against some of the most entrenched and
long-standing privileges in California politics. Under California law, it is
very difficult to stop many cities from doing what they feel is in their best
interest. Most older and larger cities are "charter cities" rather than
"general law cities" subject to the California Municipal code. Under the
California Constitution, charter cities can pretty much do anything or
provide any service short of printing money and raising an army. The League
of California cities - a weighty organization representing every one of
California's cities - is already swinging into action to support direct
access. Most Assembly Democrats started out as City councilors and have some
sympathy with local independence. And the resistance within the Assembly is
already building against Hertzberg's attempts to stop even large companies
getting direct access.
Some city leaders will not wish to fight the Governor and the state
legislature on the issue. But if municipalities do not opt out, they may have
to explain to their local business and voters why they are paying far more
for electricity than a city next door which chooses to set up its own power
company. Cities are beginning to realize they might potentially lose major
employers. Politicians are also beginning to realize that local companies
stand to gain or lose a fortune on this matter, and this could affect
campaign contributions.
State Power Plans at Risk
If municipalities do move to set up their own power companies, it could
undermine at least three key elements of the State of California's power
plans:
? First, the rate hike already approved falls mostly on businesses and other
large users. But municipal power would unpick this structure, allow large
regions of California to ignore the PUC, leaving the rate structure to be
determined city by city. Many municipalities may be unable to resist pressure
from local businesses to protect them from disproportionate rate hikes.
Others might cave into irate voters.
? Second, the plans laid out by Governor Davis' and State Treasurer
Angelides' for a California State Public Power Authority would also be badly
damaged if large regions avoid having anything to do with it. It is possible
that long-term power contracts might also face an additional hurdle if
municipalities opt out of higher long-term rates by buying on the open
market. It could mean the state is left with excess power that it would have
to sell at a loss.
? Third, revenues to back the proposed power bond could be imperiled, if
municipalities opt out of the rate structure and revenue stream needed to
repay the bond. And if the momentum for direct access develops among the
cities and municipalities across the state, it could make it much more
difficult to launch the bond in the first place as investors may take fright
at potential threats to the viability of repayments.
The issue is at an early stage -- the PUC had a general workshop on the
matter at its offices in San Francisco on Friday. State legislative leaders
are likely to use every political and legal means available to stop municipal
secession, or at least smother the issue until the power bond is successfully
away. But stopping the municipalities if they choose to follow this path
could prove to be difficult.
=====================================
|
4,293 |
Subject: RE: CAISO Board Meeting - Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/963.
=====================================
Alan,
The Board has now adjourned to Executive Session (2:55 PM) with NO public d=
iscussion about Enron and our Scheduling Coordinator status (althought ther=
e was some brief reference to SCE not going into bankruptcy but there may b=
e other participants they need to deal with - comment made during the budge=
t discussion). Below are some of the issues that may be of interest:
Information Policy. They are trying to "Streamline" dissemination of infor=
mation to Federal and State agencies. They are going to be trying to chang=
e the tariff language to create a "Safe harbor" for entities like FERC and =
EOB (or whatever State agency has current oversight authority of the ISO) =
What this safe harbor does is, assuming all parties have signed an appropri=
ate confidentiality agreement with the ISO, when the EOB requests "confiden=
tial" information the ISO would deliver this information ASAP - there would=
be a 5 day delay before the government agency could release this "confiden=
tial" information to the public, during which time the market participant(s=
) involved could petition to stop public disclosure of this information (it=
seems to set backwards the process today, where they have to subpoena us f=
or the data) The other catch here is, if the EOB gets the data, and ANY ot=
her government agency asks the EOB for the information, assuming the confid=
entiality agreements have been signed, allow for the EOB to pass this data =
on to the requestor. I believe the 5-day restriction on that entity then s=
tarts. No matter what, this policy would seem problematic - to date I don'=
t believe there is any state agency which has proved to be particularly tru=
stworthy when it comes to keeping information confidential.
Congestion Management - Mr. Kristov has outlined several steps to a new con=
gestion management mechanism. There are 3 phases to this proposal, interim=
with the ISO imposing limits on scheduling by generators and bids (no more=
negative dec bids), Develop a mechanism for the Day Ahead and Hour Ahead p=
rocess (which was not described - apparently it is still in the formative s=
tages) and finally develop and implement protocols and software which can d=
eal with congestion in Real-Time. Mr. K points to the addition of new Gen =
to the ISO system which is causing much of this new congestion and the nega=
tive dec bids. They will be filing this plan with the FERC soon.
FTR Auction - the presentation was just to show how FTRs are derived and to=
get a "rubber-stamp" approval to hold the auction in April. Well, it didn=
't seem to work out that way. Apparently Mr. Florio doesn't like the FTR m=
arket, there is concern that the ISO will not get the "right market value" =
for the FTRs and there was concern about congestion payments. The Board vo=
ted to "move" this item and leave it open for further review prior to the n=
ext Board meeting, where they may vote to ask FERC to allow them to suspend=
or reduce the term of the auctioned FTRs. We need to watch this for furth=
er developments.
CERS Relationship - Ziad Alaywan outlined the current and pending changes m=
ade as a result of FERC action on 11/20. Transition: As of 11/13 CERS has=
not been getting proprietary views of the BEEP stack. As of 11/16 CERS is=
no longer being supplied with previews of the D/A and H/A scheduling resul=
ts and by 11/30 at 2359, CERS - CAISO will no longer be providing any remai=
ning D/A, H/A and R/T information and presumably by 12/6 CERS payments will=
be made and will halt all OOM calls to CERS and the ISO will resume only m=
aking OOM calls to all participants when necessary as per their Tariff. Yo=
u can expect a market notice to this effect sometime tomorrow.
That's it!
Dave=20
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Perrino, Dave =20
Sent:=09Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:04 PM
To:=09Comnes, Alan; Mara, Susan
Cc:=09Blair, Kit; Dasovich, Jeff; Hall, Steve
Subject:=09RE: CAISO Board Meeting
Listening now. I will keep an ear open for the ESP issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Comnes, Alan =20
Sent:=09Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:57 AM
To:=09Mara, Susan; Perrino, Dave
Cc:=09Blair, Kit; Dasovich, Jeff; Hall, Steve
Subject:=09CAISO Board Meeting
Is going on as we speak. Sue or Dave: can you listen in?
Board of Governors
Location: California ISO; 877-381-5998 Passcode: ISO
=====================================
|
4,294 |
Subject: NARUC ACTIVITIES
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12656.
=====================================
FROM KERRY STROUP AND ROY BOSTON
Roy Boston and I have been asked to coordinate communications regarding NARUC
activities and Enron Government Affairs staff. Our goal is to foster an
effective presence at NARUC, and to facilitate direct communications of Enron
viewpoints when appropriate at committee and staff subcommittee meetings.
This memo is a reminder to all that the NARUC (National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners) Summer Meeting is on the horizon.
Commissioners representing US states, federal agencies and international
members will be in attendance.
NARUC will hold its annual Summer Meeting in Seattle, Washington, from July
15-18. Before June 22, registration fees are $400 for industry
representatives; thereafter they are $450. An on-line registration form is
available at http://www.naruc.org. That site also provides information on
hotel accommodations and (in theory) on committee and sub-committee agendas.
Many of the committees have not yet developed their agendas, but some
preliminary information is available. That information is summarized below
and available at the same website address. As we receive additional agenda
information, it will be disseminated to you.
As of today, the following information is for selected
committees/subcommittees regarding their agendas:
Committee on Finance and Technology
Sunday July 15, 10am-12pm, 3pm-5pm
Sunday July 15, 1:30 pm Staff Subcommittee on Electric Reliability
("Distribution Innovations: Necessity is the Mother of Innovation"
and other presentations under development
Tuesday July 17, 9am-5pm
Wednesday July 18, 9am-12pm
Committee on Energy Resources and the Environment
Sunday Juy 15 10:45-12:30pm Environmental Subcommittee, "Environmental
Issues Associated with Backup Generation"
Sunday July 15 3pm-5pm Renewables and Distributed Resources Subcommittee
(Wind, Solar, PV Compact Activities)
Monday July 16 10:15am-12pm Energy Efficiency Subcommittee (Comm/Res AC
Efficiency, TOU and RealTime Metering, Regional Market Transformation
Program Progress)
Monday July 16 1:30pm-3pm Regulatory and Market Strategies Subcommittee
Monday July 16 3:15pm-5pm ERE and Staff Subcommittee (Grant Status Report,
Washington Report, Resolutions Presentations)d
Tuesday July 17 8:30am-10am General Sessions on Financial Risk Management
Tools
Tuesday July 17 10:15am-5pm ERE and Staff Subcommittee (Panel on Early
Experience with Price-Responsive Load, Retail Competition and the
Green Market, Future Role of Nuclear Power, Clean Coal Technology,
Resolutions, EPRI and Electricity Innovation Reports, National Council on
Competition and the Electric Industry Report)
Committee on Electricitiy
Sunday July 15 10:30am-12pm Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues (Subcommittee
Report onWaste Disposal/Yucca Mountain/Legislative Report/Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management Financing and Management/Nuclear Industry
Outlook/Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Report)
Sunday July 15 12pm-1:30pm Staff Subcommittee on Strategic Issues
(Planning for Future Needs: Nuclear/Generation vs. Transmission
Expansion;National Energy Policy)
Sunday July 15 3:30pm-5pm Staff Subcommittee on Electricity
Monday July 16 10:15am-12:15pm Committee on Electricity: Strategic Issues
(Consumer Choice Through Metering Technology: Fantasy or Technological
Reality)
Monday July 16 2pm-5pm Committee on Electricity
Tuesday July 17 8:30am-5pm Committee on Electricity
Wednesday July 18 9am-12pm Committee on Electricity
Committee on Gas
Sunday July 15 9am-5pm Staff Subcommittee on Gas
Monday July 16 10:15am-4:30pm Committee on Gas
Monday July 16 4:30pm-5:30pm Staff Subcommittee on Gas
Tuesday July 17 8:30am-3pm Committee on Gas
Tuesday July 17 3:30pm-5pm Staff Subcommittee on Gas
Wednesday July 18 8am-12pm Committee on Gas
Committee on Telecommunications
Saturday July 14 9am-6pm Staff Subcommittee on Telecommunications
Sunday July 15 9am-5pm Staff Subcommittee on Telecommunications
Sunday July 15 3pm-5pm Committee on Telecommunications: Policy Groups
Monday July 16 10:15am-5pm Committee on Telecommunications
Tuesday July 17 9am-5pm Committee on Telecommunications
Wednesday July 18 9am-12pm Committee on Telecommunications
=====================================
|
4,295 |
Subject: FW: Sempra Gas Transmission OII PHC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3985.
=====================================
FYI. Thought you might be interested. Perhaps next week we can do
coffee.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cherry, Brian
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:43 PM
> To: Andrew Niven; Benjamin Campbell; Dan McLafferty; Dan Thomas; David
> Anderson; Dede Hapner; Dennis Gee; Donald Petersen; Frank Lindh; G
> Jefferson; Geoffrey Bellenger; George Clavier; J Reidenbach; Jerry Miller;
> John Armato; John Clarke; Kevin Ernst; Kirk Johnson; Les Buchner; Les
> Guliasi; Lisa Lieu; Lise Jordan; Mark Huffman; Michael Katz; Neha Patel;
> Patrick Golden; Paul Sivley; Randall Litteneker; Ray Williams; Richard
> Hall; Rodney Boschee; Sandra Burns; Sandy Dickinson; Shaun Halverson;
> Shelly Malekos; Stuart Tartaglia; Todd Arnett; Trista Berkovitz
> Subject: Sempra Gas Transmission OII PHC
>
> Earlier today, a PHC was held in the Sempra Gas Transmission OII
> (I.00-11-002). ALJ Bushy and Assigned Commissioner Bilas presided over
> the hearing and 40 appearances were entered into the record. The OII is
> focused on Sempra, SoCalGas, and SDG&E's gas transmission planning
> practices in general and the recent curtailments of gas deliveries in
> SDG&E's service territory.
>
> Parties argued for segmenting the proceeding into two phases: Phase 1,
> which would deal with SDG&E's Rule 14 curtailment priority and is expected
> to be resolved through a settlement in the near term (by January 2001)
> with SDG&E's electric generation customers, and Phase 2, which will deal
> with longer-term issues of reliability and system infrastructure planning
> and development.
>
> As for the Phase 1 issues, Duke, Dynegy and SDG&E are to reply to
> discovery requests by December 15 and present a status report or
> resolution of Rule 14 matters to the ALJ on or before January 19. In an
> effort at compromise, PG&E NEG (Otay Mesa) proposed a "Double Pro Rata
> Gas Curtailment" plan for parties to consider. Under this plan, EG's
> (excepting cogenerators) would be curtailed on a pro rata basis within the
> EG class based upon scheduled EG demand. This would be classified as a
> Step 1 allocation. In the event this Step 1 allocation to an individual
> EG is such that it is unable to satisfy its RMR obligations under the gas
> allocated under Step 1 (assuming it has been called upon by the ISO
> pursuant to the terms of the RMR contract), then an additional quantity
> of gas will be made available to that plant on a pro rata basis from the
> remaining EG plants. PG&E NEG was the only one to offer a formalized
> proposal and I have copies of the proposal for those who are interested.
>
> The Phase II issues look to be much more contentious and are likely to
> involve significant discovery issues. The parties pointed out to the ALJ
> that comments filed by SDG&E and SoCalGas on the OII and in
> representations made in the courtroom today failed to include Sempra or
> its pipeline affiliate as a respondent. They also noted that many of the
> issues they were concerned with dealt specifically with communications
> between Sempra and its affiliates. The ALJ noted that "good form required
> a respondent to cooperate and appear" . Sempra argued that SDG&E and
> SoCalGas were the only entities owning and operating gas transmission and
> distribution facilities in California, not the parent or the pipeline
> company. ALJ Bushy ended this discussion quickly and noted that Sempra
> was a respondent and should enter an appearance and the Sempra attorney
> reluctantly agreed.
>
> More important were the comments of Commissioner Bilas. Bilas noted that
> the recent gas curtailments in southern California, combined with the
> electricity crisis and high winter gas prices, were creating headaches for
> everyone. He stated that parties need to come to grips with the dynamic
> political climate and needed to find, "..legitimate economic
> solutions...not let this become a political football". This certainly
> appears to be consistent with his current thinking as evidenced by his
> caution in moving forward with the southern California Comprehensive
> Settlement as stated in the CSA PD.
>
> Parties are requested to file PHC statements for the second PHC, currently
> scheduled for sometime the week of the January 22. The PHC statements
> need to include an issue discussion and a proposed schedule. ALJ Bushy
> ordered discovery to commence immediately.
=====================================
|
4,296 |
Subject: Fwd: CAISO Press Release re 10-21-00 Market Stabilization Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2595.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:43:01 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>,
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: CAISO Press Release re 10-21-00 Market Stabilization Plan
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Friday October 20, 8:00 pm Eastern Time
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
=====================================
|
4,297 |
Subject: RE: California Update--9.02.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/9.
=====================================
Ditto.
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Shapiro, Richard =20
Sent:=09Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:45 PM
To:=09Dietrich, Janet; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc:=09Kean, Steven J.
Subject:=09RE: California Update--9.02.01
Understood.
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Dietrich, Janet =20
Sent:=09Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:18 PM
To:=09Dasovich, Jeff
Cc:=09Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard
Subject:=09FW: California Update--9.02.01
Probably no need to reiterate here (it just makes me feel better), but the =
date of the bill signing or September 1 is MUCH MUCH preferable to EES. We =
have substantial contracts that we executed at the end of August.
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES on 09/04/2001 =
12:15 PM ---------------------------
From:=09Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/02/2001 09:04 AM
To:=09Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim=
Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@=
EES, Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Krist=
in Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@E=
ES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HO=
U/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Stephen Swa=
in/ENRON@enronXgate, John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@e=
nronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enr=
onXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Don Black/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Ri=
chter/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/ENRON@enronXgate, Janet R Dietrich/H=
OU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Linda Robertson/ENRON@enronXgate=
, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palm=
er/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Wanda Curry/ENRON@en=
ronXgate, Lisa Mellencamp/ENRON@enronXgate, Mary lynne Ruffer/ENRON@enronXg=
ate, Wade Stubblefield/HOU/EES@EES
cc:=09=20
Subject:=09FW: California Update--9.02.01
?=09On Friday, the Assembly failed to get its version of the Edison MOU out=
of the appropriations committee.
?=09The bill must pass out of that committee before it can go to the full A=
ssembly for passage.
?=09Negotiations continue among Assembly Democrats about what the final bil=
l should look like.
?=09The Assembly will try again to pass the bill out of the Assembly on Tue=
sday.
?=09In response to the California PUC proposed order, which would retroacti=
vely end Direct Access on July 1, the Assembly amended its bill on Friday t=
o include its own "date certain" for the temporary suspension of Direct Acc=
ess.
?=09The Assembly bill would now suspend Direct Access beginning August 25.
?=09We are working with others to get the date of suspension changed to eit=
her 1) the date the bill is signed or 2) September 1.
?=09We will provide additional information on Tuesday about the bill's stat=
us and our progress in changing the suspension date.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Dasovich, Jeff =20
Sent:=09Friday, August 31, 2001 10:41 AM
To:=09Kean, Steven J.; Kingerski, Harry; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachma=
n, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David=
; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Blachman, Jeremy; Gahn, Scott; =
Belden, Tim; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.=
; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, =
Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; D=
enne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellenca=
mp, Lisa; Ruffer, Mary lynne; Stubblefield, Wade
Subject:=09California Update--08.31.01
?=09The Assembly will attempt to pass its version of the Edison MOU (SB 78)=
out of the Appropriations Committee today.
?=09If and when that occurs, the Assembly will also attempt to get the bill=
passed out of the full Assembly today.
?=09It will be a very long putt to get both accomplished today.
?=09If and when the Assembly gets the bill out of the Assembly today, the b=
ill will move over to the Senate, where the chances of passage are even mor=
e remote.
?=09That said, Davis is making a full court press to get the bill passed ou=
t of both houses for his signature.
?=09Will report back with the events of the Assembly.
Don't hesitate to call if you have any questions (415.782.7822).
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,298 |
Subject: RE: CPUC Authority to Adjust Rates
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/288.
=====================================
Jim and Jeff --
I spoke with Brian Cragg about the Commission's adjustment of QF prices. He
said that to date they have only done it on a going forward basis. They did
say when they issued their decision in March which changed the formula for
QF pricing that they were going to continue their examination of the
formula inputs and additional future changes could be made retroactive to
March. To date they have not taken further action.
In the past, when the Commission has made changes to rates to reflect
overcollections or undercollections, they have not gone back and
recalculated each bill. The corrections are made on a going forward basis.
Thus in the case of the PX energy charge, the energy charge on customer's
future bills would be reduced to reflect the past over payments.
Conversely, the PX credit would be reduced to reflect the fact that they
were to high in the past.
Jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 8:57 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: CPUC Authority to Adjust Rates
Jeanne --
Not quite sure that I am getting the picture. Let me lay it out more
directly.
The PX Credit for October 2000 was $225 based on the actual market rates.
Now FERC is saying that October 2000 hourly prices for CalPX DA and CalPX
HA markets were "too high" in June 2001. Can the CPUC change the PX Credit
for October 2000 and make the Utilities recalculate our Negative CTC?
What is prospective? Have they ever done this before?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com
]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 7:35 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail)
Subject: CPUC Authority to Adjust Rates
Jeff and Jim --
I have done some research into the issue of whether the CPUC would be
able
to restate the UDC's PX Energy Charges (and thus PX Credits) back to
October
if the FERC were to apply its mitigation plan back that far. Thus far,
my
research indicates that the answer is yes (or at least there is a strong
argument that the answer is yes) and it would not violate the rule
against
retroactive rate making. The reasoning is as follows:
The Commission (as affirmed by the courts) have ruled that they may
subject
a utility's rates to refund to account for adjustments made pursuant to
a
methodology or formula adopted before the date the utility's rates
became
subject to refund. Thus any ratemaking is considered prospective because
the
formulas are in place before the utility's rates are made subject to
refund.
The PX Energy Charge is calculated pursuant to the formula/mechanism set
forth in the utility's tariffs. These charges were always subject to
adjustment on a prospective basis due to the settlement process. The
change
in energy prices which would be effected by the FERC ruling could very
well
be viewed as an adjustment made pursuant to a formula. Thus the change
would not be considered retroactive ratemaking.
I had a chance to talk with Mike Day for a couple of minutes about this
issue. He concurred with my analysis.
Jeanne
P.S. Please forward this e-mail to anyone you think needs to see it.
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,299 |
Subject: Fwd: Draft of Enron White Paper on California markets
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/860.
=====================================
I have attached Seabron's draft of the Section 206 white paper. Although I
have not read it yet, I'm sending it because so many of you asked to see it.
If you wish to have a conference call about this let me know. Or you can
just E-mail your comments to me.
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Draft White Paper
Please find attached an Acrobat version of a Preliminary Draft white paper.
If you have any difficulties receiving or using the attached file, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Regards,
Kevin Wellenius
Frontier Economics, Inc.
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 354-0060
(617) 354-0640 FAX
www.frontier-economics.com
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
- 00-10-07 SA Draft Enron White Paper.PDF
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 10/06/2000 02:50 PM
---------------------------
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
10/06/2000 02:12 PM
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Draft of Enron White Paper on California markets
Mary, I've attached Seabron's draft of the White Paper. Per your request,
Seabron added a section on governance; I have not reviewed this particular
section to see if I have any additional thoughts or comments, although I
agree with Seabron that we should probably discuss the need for this section
next week. I have received the Acrobat version by separate email and will
forward it to you separately. Finally, I will send the pleading that will
accompany the White Paper to you on Monday. Ron
Received: from mcafee.bracepatt.com by bracepatt.com; Fri, 06 Oct 2000
15:41:25 -0500
Received: FROM kes.ici.net BY mcafee.bracepatt.com ; Fri Oct 06 15:41:40 2000
-0500
X-Proxy: keymaster.bracepatt.com protected
Received: from SeabLaptop ([38.167.130.101]) by kes.ici.net (8.8.8/8.8.8)
with SMTP id QAA06374 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:36:10
-0400 (EDT)
From: "Seabron Adamson" <[email protected]>
To: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft of Enron White Paper on California markets
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:36:22 -0400
Message-ID:
<NDBBJDNDALMDFFFCOAEBEELMCEAA.seabron.adamson@frontier-economics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C02FB3.902E9FC0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Ron:
Please find attached a first draft of the Enron white paper on further
California market reforms.
I have added a short section on governance as discussed, although I am not
convinced that it has a great role or that the comments of Carl or I are
very insightful on this issue. Perhaps we should discuss it further next
week.
Give me a call if you need anything else. There may be problems with the
Word version (Word always causes problems) so I will email you an Acrobat
version as well in a few minutes.
Seab
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
Seabron Adamson
Frontier Economics Inc
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Ph: (617) 354-0060
Fax: (617) 354-0640
[email protected]
www.frontier-economics.com
- 00-10-07 SA Draft Enron White Paper.doc
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.