dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
4,300 |
Subject: SVMG Energy Actions and Accomplishments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27730.
=====================================
To Principal Officers Energy Committee members, Liaison Representatives and
Environmental Committee members:
It has been about a year since we began working together to advocate for a
healthy energy policy and future for California employers, employees and
their families. We have been meeting weekly (at least). It's been a great
challenge to understand the issues, determine our principles, goals and
objectives, build key partnerships and learn to advocate effectively in a
difficult and politicized environment. We started out in the frying pan,
skipped the fire and went straight into the furnace (via the crucible) and
have remained there to the present. Our learning curve has been steep and
bumpy at times. Despite some frustrations and setbacks, I am happy to say
that there is much to celebrate and recognize as successes for SVMG. We
have been involved in many sectors--Conservation, Smart Load Management,
advocacy for clean new generation and transmission, smart policy and
communications in all these areas. Below is a brief presentation I made
to the SVMG board of directors this past Wednesday presenting our return on
investment and highlighting accomplishments for the dedicated efforts of so
many great people and companies. Feel free to respond. We welcome your
input and feedback.
I wish to especially recognize the efforts of your energy committee leaders
in this unprecedented effort: John Redding of General Electric and K.C.
Mares (formerly Sun, now Exodus). They have represented you with skill,
wisdom and more than a dash of panache. In upcoming messages we will be
recognizing other key leaders who serve you so ably. Please feel free to
express your appreciation to them. ([email protected];
[email protected])
One additional item. I want you to know that SVMG has a unique opportunity
and role in the state. We have been working daily here in the capital for
the last week representing Silicon Valley with a broad coalition of
stakeholders and legislators to find a workable solution to the financial
segment of the energy crisis. I am encouraged by the committment to a
solution and the attitude of cooperation. Quite a contrast to what we
usually experience. Stay tuned. We will keep you informed on the progress
as
we are able.
Grateful for your partnership in Energy,
Justin Bradley
Director of Energy Programs
***********************************************
ROI - SVMG Energy Actions and Accomplishments
Policy
? Established blackout notice plan with ISO working with Governor - 60
minutes, increased access to information
? Curtailment Program Advocacy with PUC - OBMC plan available to exit
blackout blocks
? Advocated with BAAQMD - Unlimited hours of backup generators during
blackouts
Projects
? Established criteria to assess crucial infrastructure developments
o Metcalf Energy Center - Approved by SJ CC 10-1
o Los Esteros Transmission Project - Approved by PUC
o Tri-Valley Transmission Project - Pending
o Gilroy Peakers Project - Approved by CEC
0 Russel City Energy Center - Pending
Appointments
? Successfull advocacy for Nora Brownell's appointment to the FERC
? Carl Guardino on ISO Board of Governors
Partnerships with:
? CEC to fund load management consulting and notification (over $3M)
? San Jose, Santa Clara County, Cities Association - Summit I and II
o Over 200 participants from all sectors
? NRDC to advocate and provide information on Conservation, load management
o SB5X approved - $850 M for various programs
? Bay Area Economic Forum - Foundational Study on Economic impacts to Bay
Area
? Area Council and Others on Energy Conservation
Information and Tools for Energy Success
? SVMG Energy Summit - First major trade group to highlight energy crisis -
Over 180 participated
? Energy Tools Conference at Oracle - over 200 participated
? Web casts and website clearinghouse of conservation and dozens of load
management programs and incentives
? E-energy conservation Campaign - over 5 million employees provided energy
information
Communication
? Voice of Silicon Valley on energy through local, regional, national and
international media
Advocacy on all levels of Policy
? Federal - Energy Reliability Initiative - $ Billions in reliability
investment funding
? State - With Governor Davis, Senate, Assembly, CEC, PUC, ISO, Air Board on
all levels of Energy Policy
? Local - On energy infrastructure
=====================================
|
4,301 |
Subject: Californians Nervous on Electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/567.
=====================================
Californians Nervous on Electricity
By JOHN HOWARD
09/22/2000
AP Online
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The long, hot summer is ending for San Diego's
electricity customers. But millions of other Californians fear they could
face the same kind of misery when deregulation reaches their part of state.
San Diego-area ratepayers were horrified to see their electricity bills
triple this summer when the region became the first in California to
deregulate.
Next up is Pacific Gas and Electric Co., with 4.5 million customers from
Bakersfield to the Oregon line. It wants to lift the lid on rates next
spring, or even sooner.
And Southern California Edison, which serves 4.3 million customers in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area, has not said when it wants to deregulate, but
under state law it has to happen by 2002.
"Everybody's worried. But ratepayers have paid enough. They've overpaid, and
they're not going to pay a penny more," said Harvey Rosenfield, a consumer
advocate in Santa Monica.
The state Public Utilities Commission, which wrote the first report seven
years ago urging deregulation, said in a grim assessment that more problems
loom on the horizon unless there is a "mid-course correction."
The summer's woes "represent a precursor of what lies ahead for California 's
economy over the next 30 months," the PUC said.
The PUC is investigating its options, which could include putting the brakes
on deregulation.
The 1996 deregulation law was pushed mainly by big industrial customers, who
wanted lower rates. It was supported by utilities and free-market advocates.
Consumer groups generally opposed it. It was overwhelmingly supported by
lawmakers and signed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson.
Under the law, utilities would be forced to sell their energy-producing
assets, such as dams and power plants, and buy power instead on the open
market.
The theory was that competition would drive down rates. But it didn't work
out that way.
When San Diego Gas & Electric , with 1.2 million customers, deregulated, the
average monthly residential bill there and in southern Orange County rocketed
from $40 to $68 to $130 in less than three months.
Ratepayers and politicians were so alarmed that California retreated somewhat
from deregulation by rolling back San Diego rates and promising a $100
million rebate to customers there.
Most agree that an inadequate supply of a power - combined with high demand,
caused by a sweltering summer, a booming economy and a growing population -
precipitated the soaring rates.
The episode has raised concern that the deregulation law is deeply flawed and
tries to accomplish too much too quickly.
Five power plants are under construction and at least a dozen more are
proposed, but none will be ready to boost supplies this year, or most of the
next. None were built in recent years because investors were wary of the
uncertain California market.
In the meantime, other states are watching California and at least one -
neighboring Nevada - may drop plans to deregulate.
"Our hope is that the states that stumbled into deregulation reconsider, and
that those that have not yet acted don't even bother," said Charlie Higgley
of Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer group.
At least a half-dozen other states are in some phase of deregulation,
including Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and
Connecticut. None has experienced the roller-coaster rates California has.
That's because they did it differently, according to industry experts. In
some cases they did not force the sell-off of generation facilities, or they
took more time.
PG&E has lost about $2.2 billion since June and SoCal Edison has been running
up similar losses while they await deregulation. That's because the utilities
rates' have been frozen during the transition period, while they sell off
their power-generating assets.
Once they sell off their assets, the utilities want to pass those costs on to
their customers. That alarms consumer advocates.
Rosenfield, who wrote a 1988 ballot proposal that cut insurance rates, said a
ballot initiative to roll back electric rates is in the works.
"There is a ratepayer rebellion," he said. "It started in San Diego, it has
spread to the Bay Area and in two years it will be everywhere in the state."
---
=====================================
|
4,302 |
Subject: RE: I. 99-07-003 Draft Comments on the Revised Proposed Decision
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "paul'.'[email protected]", '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/40.
=====================================
Roger to all the comments on the price cap. I will draft a paragraph to
express our concern but keep the supportive tone. I will await Edison's
decision on participation. Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Amirault, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:58 AM
To: 'Dasovich, Jeff'; MDay; Amirault, Paul; Jeff Dasovich Enron SF;
Michael Alexander, SCE; Davies, Phil; Porter, Douglas K; Hass, Glen;
Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan
Subject: RE: I. 99-07-003 Draft Comments on the Revised Proposed
Decision
Mike: the draft comments read very well, however I would echo Jeff's
comments on the price cap. We should advise against, but still support the
RPD overall. No other comments to add.
Paul Amirault
Vice-President, Marketing
Wild Goose Storage Inc.
403 266-8298
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:17 PM
To: MDay; Amirault, Paul; Jeff Dasovich Enron SF; Michael Alexander,
SCE; Phil Davies, WGSI Calgary; Porter, Douglas K; Hass, Glen; Steffes,
James D.; Mara, Susan
Subject: RE: I. 99-07-003 Draft Comments on the Revised Proposed
Decision
Mike: Comments looks good. My only comment is that, in our view, the
price cap (which would cover ALL capacity in the secondary market) is
simply bad economic policy and won't address any problems--in fact it
will only create problems. (From a practical perspective, I'm not even
sure that the Commission can successfully "regulate" prices in the
secondary market.)
Will the commission change the price cap provisions of the decision
based comments advising against them? Very unlikely.
But when the caps create problems (and they will), I want to have been
on record advising the Commission of why caps are bad economic policy
and pointing out the bad outcomes that caps will cause. I think that
it's very important to point out the downside of caps and to be on
record against them.
That said, I don't want the comments to be so negative as to cloud
support for the decision; nor do I think the Commission will change the
cap based on our comments. Other than that, EES and ENA can sign on.
Anyone have any objections to pointing out the fact that price caps are
ill-advised?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: MDay
Sent: Thu 10/18/2001 8:43 PM
To: 'Amirault, Paul'; 'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'; 'Michael
Alexander, SCE'; 'Phil Davies, WGSI Calgary'; 'Porter, Douglas K'
Cc:
Subject: I. 99-07-003 Draft Comments on the Revised Proposed
Decision
<<X28621.DOC>>
Enclosed for your review are the draft comments on the Revised
Proposed
Decision in the Gas Restructuring Investigation. WGSI and Enron
have
indicated a desire to file supportive comments. Edison has
indicated an
interest in reviewing our draft for the purpose of considering
joining in
our comments. Please send edited electronic versions with
underline and
strikeout to MBD at this address no later than noon tomorrow.
These comments
must be filed tomorrow before 5 pm. I am sorry for the lateness
of the
draft, but these are not extensive comments. Except for the
little
bombshell about extending commission jurisdiction over gas
marketers, I see
little in the RPD to warrant our opposition. Even if the
Commission
proceeds with the jurisdictional grab, I believe it can be
overturned by the
Court of Appeals.
I look forward to your comments.
Mike Day
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,303 |
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT ! !
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Tracy', 'e-mail <[email protected]', "Gregg Klatt; Ed Duncan; [email protected]; 'Fairchild", '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/898.
=====================================
How do folks feel about a call on this subject today. Say around 2 PM Paci=
fic.
=20
If this works for folks, lets use my dial-in number
=20
888.621.9536
PC *3957889*
=20
Aaron
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:58 AM
To: ARM; Vicki Sandler; Todd Torgerson; Tamara Johnson; Sue Mara; Steve Sch=
leimer; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote; Rob Nichol; Randy Hickok; Peter Blood; =
Nam Nguyen; Karen Shea; Jim Crossen; Jeff Dasovich; Janie Mollon; Jack Pigo=
tt; Greg Blue; George Vaughn; Gary Ackerman; Ed Cazalet; Denice Cazalet Pur=
dum; Curtis Kebler; Curt Hatton; Corby Gardiner; Charles Miessner; Carolyn =
Baker; Bill Ross; Alden Hoekstra; Max Bulk
Cc: Gregg Klatt; Ed Duncan; [email protected]; 'Fairchild, Tracy'
Subject: IMPORTANT ! !
Attached is a ruling issued yesterday by Commissioner Wood directing that E=
SPs and customers file copies of direct access contracts with the Commissio=
n by December 3. The contracts will be available to ALL other parties who =
sign a "suitable" protective order. The Ordering Paragraphs read as follow=
:
1. By December 3, 2001, any party who believes that it has a direct acc=
ess contract or agreement potentially affected by an order to suspend direc=
t access as of July 1, 2001 or a date earlier than September 20, 2001, shal=
l submit a true and correct copy of each of the actual contracts or agreeme=
nts along with any arguments as to the impact of such an order. A failure =
to submit this information for the Commission's consideration will be consi=
dered a waiver of the arguments related to claims involving the contracts a=
nd agreements. Initially, the true and correct copy of each of the actual =
contracts or agreements shall be filed under seal with the Commission's Doc=
ket Office and served on Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Barnett.
2. Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall work with the parties who have e=
xecuted direct access contracts or agreements to develop a proposed protect=
ive order and nondisclosure agreement for Commission staff, which shall be =
submitted to ALJ Barnett by December 3. =20
3. The electric service providers and customers who are parties shall w=
ork with other parties and shall jointly submit a proposed protective order=
and nondisclosure agreement that will cover parties other than Commission =
staff by December 11, 2001.=20
4. Parties' supplemental comments to the comments they filed in respons=
e to the October 23rd Assigned Commissioner Ruling shall be submitted by Ja=
nuary 4, 2002.
As a preliminary matter, of course, AReM and WPTF do not, in their own name=
s, have direct access contracts. However, certain members of AReM and WPTF=
are direct parties to the proceeding and need to consider what course they=
wish to take. The group also needs to consider if they wish to fight this=
Order on Constitutional or procedural grounds. I will be considering our =
options and get back to you with more detail. However, as a very prelimina=
ry analysis, it is evident that the Commission does not have jurisdiction o=
ver either ESPs or the customers they serve. The request is also particula=
rly outrageous because of the statements that, "A failure to submit this in=
formation for the Commission's consideration will be considered a waiver of=
the arguments related to the claims involving the contracts and agreements=
" and "Parties to this proceeding may have access to these contracts and ag=
reements after the appropriate protective order and nondisclosure agreement=
s are in effect." The former is a likely denial of due process and the lat=
ter exposes proprietary contracts and pricing information to ESP competitor=
s and exposes sensitive pricing information to competitors of energy-depend=
ent customers. =20
=20
Your thoughts would be appreciated. My initial reaction is that this is t=
ime for ESPs and customer groups, such as CMTA, ABAG, CLECA, CIU, EPUC, SPU=
RR, etc., to band together and fight this at multiple levels, from the Gove=
rnor's Office on down, including in the media. Your thoughts would be very=
much appreciated.
=20
Dan
=20
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
=====================================
|
4,304 |
Subject: Re: EBS News
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1672.
=====================================
Thanks Jeff. I too am very concerned about competition and transfer pricing
issues in the Irish electricity market.
Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
11/15/00 09:10 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Lara
Leibman/NA/Enron@ENRON, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Cooper/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, [email protected]
Subject: EBS News
Business&Finance: ESB ownership of network is questioned - Competition
Authority says separation of national grid from core company does not go far
enough. Arthur Beesley reports
11/13/2000
Irish Times
18
Copyright (C) 2000 Irish Times; Source: World Reporter (TM)
The Competition Authority has questioned the ESB's ownership of the
electricity network in the newly deregulated power market.
In a paper submitted to the Department of Public Enterprise, the body said
the separation of the ESB's National Grid operation from the core company did
not go far enough to ensure fair competition.
It said arguments in favour of the ESB retaining the transmission and
distribution system ignored the 'overwhelming conclusion' that a generation
company which owns such assets 'will naturally favour itself' at the expense
of customers and reliability.
The paper has not been published yet. It is believed to state, however, that
the ESB's retention of its 'non-competitive' transmission and distribution
assets and its 'competitive' electricity generation business was unwise from
a competition perspective.
The National Grid, which controls when individual power stations feed
electricity into the network, was separated from the ESB when 27 per cent of
the market was opened last February.
In theory, this meant the ESB could not favour its own generation stations
over more efficient competitors when deciding which plant to switch on and
off as demand for power fluctuates.
But the authority's response to the Statutory Instrument behind the
separation - which renamed the National Grid as Eirgrid - said more should be
done to ensure the market operates fairly.
The paper said: 'Some argue that as long as there is an independent operator
of the underlying transmission system, ownership of the transmission system
can remain in the hands of an upstream generation operator.
'In accordance with this line of argument, the shift of operational control
of electricity transmission to Eirgrid would mean that discrimination in
dispatch [of power] and other operations would not be possible. However, the
Competition Authority considers that this argument ignores the overwhelming
conclusion that the generation company that owns the transmission lines will
naturally favour itself.'
The Statutory Instrument followed complex talks, which led to an agreement
between the ESB, its trade unions and the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms
O'Rourke.
When Eirgrid was formed, the ESB retained ownership and responsibility to
develop and maintain the high-voltage national transmission system and the
low-voltage local distribution network.
The authority says these, too, should be separated from the ESB to ensure the
competitive market functions fairly, according to a person familiar with its
paper.
This would ensure equal access to the power network and an objective,
transparent, non-discriminatory treatment of all electricity generators in
the market, it said.
The paper argues the ESB has an incentive to allocate as many costs as
possible to the operation of the transmission and distribution system.
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 100
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,305 |
Subject: RE: Follow up
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/380.
=====================================
Really appreciate the note. Great working with you.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: John Klauberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:06 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Follow up
Jeff:
Thanks again for all of your time and consideration with respect to our con=
sideration of Norm Pedersen to join our Firm in Los Angeles. I just wanted=
to let you know that we decided it probably did not make sense to pursue t=
hings further with Norm. After drilling down even further, it just seemed =
like we were going to run into major conflict problems down the road based =
upon the CA regulatory proceedings that likely are going to arise and the n=
ature of Norm's historical client base. It also would not have been fair t=
o Norm to have him join the Firm and then be conflicted out of work that he=
had planned to pursue at the Firm. I can't tell you how much I appreciate=
your candor as well as your open-mindedness in helping me evaluate the sit=
uation. I really felt bad bothering you with this, but I knew you would ha=
ve the best insights into the likely direction of the regulatory proceeding=
s in CA and I wanted to make sure that I was being fair in evaluating Norm'=
s situation and in a position to make a decision based on all of the releva=
nt facts. I also want to emphasize emphatically (if it is possible to use =
those words together!) that I do not want you to think or feel that you "ni=
xed" Norm or anything along those lines; indeed, I feel quite the opposite.=
In addition, from the outset, after first talking to Norm and getting a s=
ense for the types of business he has been handling and the issues he has b=
een pursuing on behalf of his clients, I had felt it was really a non-start=
er since the last thing I wanted to do was to have LeBoeuf on the other sid=
e from Enron in important regulatory proceedings for the company. It is on=
e thing to receive a waiver to represent another company in a negotiated co=
mmercial transaction in which Enron is relying on another law firm, but I c=
ould not see us pressing a regulatory agenda directly adverse to Enron's in=
terests in a proceeding in which Enron was a major participant and which we=
knew going into the proceedings at the start that our representation would=
be adverse to Enron.
As Rick may have told you, there have been some situations where we have be=
en adverse to the Company or at least representing clients that did not see=
"eye to eye" with Enron on all of the issues. These generally have been s=
ituations involving historical client relationships that go back decades wh=
ere Enron has itself been using Bracewell, for example, and Rick has been i=
ncredibly gracious and understanding in not conflicting us out of those pro=
ceedings. Nonetheless, I am trying to do whatever I can to try to eliminat=
e or reduce the number of those situations on a going forward basis, althou=
gh I know I will not be able to eliminate all of them in light of the size =
of our Firm and the diverse nature of its client base.
Jeff, I will follow up with you personally, but I just wanted to drop you a=
quick note to thank you for the time and thought you devoted to this. I'=
m sure we will be speaking soon on some CA regulatory matter or the other.
John
John Klauberg
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.
212 424-8125
[email protected]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidenti=
al and may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e=
-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended t=
o be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an inten=
ded recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify=
me. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of =
this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
=====================================
|
4,306 |
Subject: Fwd: WIL CONFERENCE KICK OFF MINUTES
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4450.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/04/2001 09:35 PM -----
=09Ana Wu <[email protected]>
=09Sent by: [email protected]
=0905/04/2001 07:44 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], [email protected]
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Fwd: WIL CONFERENCE KICK OFF MINUTES
Hi all,
We just have our first Women In Leadership Conference 2001 kick off meeting=
=20
and we wanted to let you know the outcome and to invite you to participate =
in=20
planning this great event!!
The WIL conference will be held on October 20th, 2001, here at Haas
Please reply to [email protected] or [email protected] if you=
=20
have questions or want to be involved
MINUTES ONE
Friday, May 4th, 2001
Thanks for your time =01(Here are the minutes of the meeting.
PLEASE, DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN THE WILCON2001 ALIAS IN MAJORDOMO...unless=
=20
you received an e-mail from Majordomo today
We will be meeting with the Lead Team next week and the group leaders will=
=20
meet with their teams later.
WELCOME to the Lead Team !!!
? Panel Coordinator Abby Veeser
? Marketing Betty Yee
? Brochure Amy Watson
? Logistics Jen Nelsen / Michelle Carroll
? Sponsorship position available
For those who haven't decided yet which group to join, these are the head=
=20
people you can contact or also Bonnie and I if you want some broad idea of=
=20
what would be your responsibilities=20
Theme of the conference
Choice 1: Women in Leadership: Explore, inspire, believe
Choice 2: Women in Leadership: Explore new horizons
Panel topics
We worked on based on the survey Nancy ran last weeks. Here are the topics.=
=20
If you have some other ideas and want to participate you can contact Abby=
=20
Veeser
1. Work Life Balance
2. Career Changes
3. Wild Women
4. Inspiration
5. Mentoring
6. Speaking / Presentation workshop
7. New alternative careers: VC, entrepreneurship, biotech (2 panels)
8. Negotiations
9. International perspective
10. Traditional careers: finance, investment banking, etc
11. Marketing
Keynote choices
We ended with six alternatives to keynotes
Carly Fiorina CEO Hewlett Packard
Meg Whitman President CEO Ebay
Shelly Lazarus Chairman/ CEO
Donna Dubinsky CEO Handspring
Condeleeza Rice National Security Advisor
Sheri Lansing President Paramount
Toti Graham GM IBM Peru
Know who is in your team:
Keynote/ sponsorhip team =20
Julie Clugage Keynote chair =20
Position available Keynote chair =20
Position available Sponsors =20
=20
Marketing group =20
Betty Yee Marketing Coordinator =20
Peggy Chen Marketing =20
Becky Frank Website & Sales=20
Amy Watson Brochure =20
Emily Stauffer Brochure =20
=20
Logistics group =20
Jen Nelsen Logistics Coordinator =20
Michelle Carroll Logistics Coordinator =20
Mui Korpaisarn =20
Kara Cosby =20
=20
=20
Panel group =20
Abby Veeser Panel Coordinator =20
Debra Underwood Panel =20
Gwyneth Galbraith Panel - mentoring =20
Alex Galovich Panel =20
Mo Brown Panel - Wild Women =20
Jihong Sanderson & Sharon Yang Panel - VC/Entrepreneurship =20
Irena Zakrajsek Panel =20
Sarita Jain Panel - HC & Biotech =20
Tanya Himathongkam Panel - International=20
Perspectives =20
Coco Kee Panel =20
Robyn Shirley-Eldridge Panel =20
Neva Dogan Panel - Career Changes =20
Dessy Nikolova Panel =20
Zhanara Orazbayeva Panel
=====================================
|
4,307 |
Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11767.
=====================================
Problem is that core has enough through utility retained gen and QF contracts
and "noncore" is going to market, so they don't need any of it, which means
it's both above market and not needed.
Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate
06/20/2001 10:09 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Contracts--Privileged and Confidential
jeff,
Is the problem that the energy DWR purchased is above market and not needed
by CORE or just above market. If the energy is needed by CORE wouldn't the
deals just be blended in as costs like utility gen and QF supply? If the
energy is not needed now could the state sell back the excess then compute
the exact loss and put a surcharge on rates for all or some customers that
recoup that amount over time. Once again there would be a CTC type recovery
period but there would not be the risk that the market price must stay below
a fixed price for the stranded costs to be recovered.
Phillip
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Belden, Tim; Calger, Christopher F.; Steffes, James; Shapiro, Richard;
[email protected]; Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; Allen, Phillip K.; Yoder,
Christian; Hall, Steve C.
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Contracts--Privileged and Confidential
Sensitivity: Confidential
PLEASE KEEP THIS NOTE, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE NOTE CONFIDENTIAL.
As folks are aware, we have been engaged in closed-door negotiations for the
past two weeks regarding a possible market-based solution to California's
electricity crisis.
In the room are the major large customer groups, environmentalists, small
customers (TURN), Independent Energy Producers, labor, the Western States
Petroleum Association, and Enron.
The negotiations were convened by the Speaker of the Assembly (Bob Hertzberg).
When Hertzberg convened the meeting, he told the parties that he wanted to
achieve a core/noncore structure, similar to the structure in place in
California's gas market (i.e., large customers are required to buy gas from
the market, with Direct Access available to all other customers).
In effect, "core" customers (rez and small business) would be served by the
utilities' retained generating assets and QF contracts; and large customers
would go to market.
The core/noncore structure would begin 1.1.03.
The negotiating group has struggled over the past two weeks, but is close
devising a framework for core/noncore in Californis (but who pays for the
utilities' past debts and the costs of DWR power purchased between January
and today remain very contentious).
Unfortunately, with the release of the information regarding the DWR
contracts last Friday, it is now clear that achieving a core/noncore
structure will be very difficult unless something is done to mitigate the
contracts.
The problem is that, if core is served by utility gen and QFs, and large
customers are in the market, there is no (or very little) need for the DWR
contracts. Instead, they look like a signficant stranded cost.
Hertzberg and the negotiating group are looking to Enron for creative ways to
address "the DWR contract problem" in order to prevent the contracts from 1)
killing the core/noncore deal and 2) forcing California to accept a structure
focused on a state power authority headed-up by David Freeman that does not
include Direct Access.
Christian Yoder and Steve Hall are reviewing the contracts to analyze any
"out clauses" that the buyer and/or the seller might have under the contract
provisions. (My cursory review of the contracts suggests that "outs" for the
state are minimal or nonexistent.)
In addition, we've started batting around ideas about how the State might
reform the contracts.
All this said, want to let everyone know that we have made it extremely clear
that Enron fundamentally opposes any and all attempts to unilaterally
abrogate anyone's contract rights.
We'd like to have a quick call tomorrow (30-60 minutes) to brainstorm some
options that we can offer Hertzberg to handle the contracts and keep the
core/noncore solution alive. We'd like to try to have the the call at 1 PM
PDT. Please let me know if this works for you, and if it doesn't, please let
me know if there's a time after 1 PM PDT that works for you.
Thanks,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,308 |
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Amendment 30
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]>@ENRON', '[email protected]>@ENRON']
File: dasovich-j/sent/431.
=====================================
Thanks. Please continue to include me on all the FERC related ditties. Mary
agree that we don't need to file separately?
Susan J Mara@EES
09/28/2000 06:04 PM
To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON
cc: <[email protected]>@ENRON, <[email protected]>@ENRON, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT@ENRON, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Jeff
Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, [email protected]@ECT@ENRON,
[email protected], Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Amendment 30
WPTF has just voted to file a protest on Amendment 30 (the ISO is asking to
be able to buy power for itself in the forward market). I agreed to fund as
did 4, maybe 5, others. The discussion was not exactly as you describe below
but I will be able to have lots of input on the filing, and am sure I can get
the points included. Therefore, I recommend that Enron NOT make a separate
filing on this.
Here is what WPTF voted on: Ask FERC to limit ISO procurement only to the
super peak product that has already been developed by the APX and require
that the price caps end in 6 months; if the ISO wishes to renew the price
caps it would have to file 60 days in advance of the 6-month deadline.
Mary Hain@ECT
09/28/2000 12:28 PM
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc: <[email protected]>@ENRON, <[email protected]>@ENRON,
<[email protected]>@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected]
Subject: Cal ISO Amendment 30
Sue- in WPTF's protest of Amendment 30, is WPTF proposing to make the
following arguments? If not we need to have Ron give an estimate for an RCR
and draft a protest.
Amendment 30, which would allow the Cal ISO to do limited forward contracting
and to allocate the costs thereof to under/overschedulers (protests due
Oct.2)the traders would like to say that the ISO should not be in the forward
market, rather the IOUs should be in the forward market and should be
incented to do so. Rather than doing anything to fix this failure to hedge
and underscheduling by the IOUs, this filing would further amplify the
problem by concentrating even more transactions with the ISO and lead to the
slippery slope to the ISO running the entire market.
Since, the filing also creates other problems. Through the proposal to do
bilateral deals without first receiving bids, the ISO moved itself out of
compliance with Order No. 2000 (assuming it ever complied) by starting to
violate the independence characteristic - the FERC's first minimum
characteristic for an RTO. Under this, the RTO is required to be independent
of market participants. Order No. 2000 defines a market participant as any
entity or its affiliate that buys or sells electric energy in the RTO's
region or in any neighboring region that might be effected by the RTO's
actions.
Further, the ISO is already buying out of market and this move would further
complicate existing problems that we have with OOM.
In addition, although the filing claims that it's request is limited, yet
there is no time limitation. Further, the limitation seems to have little
real effect.
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
09/19/2000 03:23 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: New California Filings
There have been several recent filings related to California that you may
wish to intervene in and/or protest:
1. CAISO proposal to extend price cap (ER00-3673-000) (due Oct. 5);
2. CAISO compliance filing with San Diego order to make limited forward
contracting and to allocate the costs for those contracts to SCs whose
forward schedules do not reflect their actual real-time demands.
(ER00-3636-000) (due Oct. 2);
3. City of Vernon filing to join ISO (EL00-105-000) (due September 29).
This filing triggers the CAISO's TAC charge effective 1/1/01;
4. Complaint by Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, etc. regarding the CAISO's
collection of OOM incurred to meet system reliability and to require the
CAISO to abide by the cap in Neutrality Adjustment Charge.
Please let me know as soon as possible if you wish to intervene in and/or
protest any of these filings. Thanks. Ron
=====================================
|
4,309 |
Subject: FW: FYI - Energy Policy Information from the Capital
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11604.
=====================================
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Issue: Electricity Crisis, Potential Natural Gas Crisis
What is Happening: Check-in Session
BACKGROUND
"California could cut electricity consumption by as much as 4 percent this
summer under a plan that aims to shift the
way the cost of power is communicated and billed to the state's biggest
users. The $35 million program, which has
been endorsed by Gov. Gray Davis and is being considered by state
regulators, would entail installing 15,000 new
meters and upgrading 5,000 more to reflect the hourly price of electricity.
The state's largest users, (the 21,000
customers who consume more than 200 kilowatts of electricity at any given
time,) would receive the meters and have
the option of participating in "real-time" pricing. By using these meters,
they can moderate their behavior to use less
when supply is tight or more when it is available" (Contra Costa Times
4-24-01).
RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS
"SB 28X (Sher) passed out of the Assembly yesterday on a 67-4 vote. The
legislation is expected to cost the state $3.2
million to implement. Key provisions of SB 28x would: (1) Require cities,
counties and other local agencies to
submit initial comments on a power plant application within 45 days of its
filing. (2) Require the California Energy
Commission to issue final decisions on certifying "repowering" projects --
modernization of existing plants -- within
180 days, instead of a year. (3) Extend by 17 months -- until Dec. 31,
2002 -- an expedited siting process
for temporary power plants, known as "peakers." (4) Mandate that power
plants required to renovate their facilities
to reduce air pollution do so by Jan. 1, 2004, under the auspices of the
state Air Resources Board. (5) Require
payment of unemployment-compensation benefits to workers left jobless in any
week because of unscheduled power
outages caused by shortages of supply. (6) Provide incentives for
"distributed generation" in which homeowners or
merchants produce electricity for themselves and others using solar panels,
turbines or other such equipment. Utility
fees, called "standby charges," would be waived up to 10 years for most such
customers (Sacramento Bee 4-24-01). ?
"Los Angeles County government expects to nearly double its energy bill for
next year, from $75 million to a
whopping $140 million, a hike that will cut into the county's surplus and
could force service cuts if prices continue to
rise through what all sides predict will be a difficult year in the state's
energy crisis" (LA Times 4-24-01). "California
has spent $5.1 billion from the state budget purchasing electricity this
year" (LA Times 4-24-01).
WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING
Assembly Republicans supported SB 28x, which passed Monday by a vote of
67-4, but some said it doesn't go
far enough in solving the energy crisis. "We'd like to see more siting
bills," said Assemblyman Tony Strickland,
R-Thousand Oaks. "We need more electricity supply and generation. Anyone who
thinks this is enough to solve
the crisis is really in Disneyland."
The Assembly Republican Caucus ? Member Services Division
916-319-3901
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
"California's economy is decelerating, and the state is spending many
billions of dollars -- how many, exactly, is still
unknown -- on power purchases to prevent blackouts. The combined effect of
these separate, if interrelated, factors
is to hammer the state budget in ways that no one in the Capitol considered
possible. The Davis administration's
bean counters have concluded, Capitol sources said Monday, that the state's
revenues for the 2001-02 fiscal year will
run several billion dollars under forecasts, thanks largely to the severe
decline in the state's high-technology industry.
The state could absorb a sharp dip in its tax revenues if its reserves were
available. Davis had anticipated starting the
2001-02 fiscal year July 1 with $6.6 billion in general-fund reserves and
ending it a year later with nearly $4 billion still
in the kitty. The newly discovered revenue shortfall would have reduced the
reserves but not wiped them out. Those
numbers, however, don't take into account the nearly $6 billion that the
state has committed to buying power,
continuing at the rate of $2 billion a month, and only a tiny portion of the
outlay being covered by utility
ratepayers. At current rates, the state will be in the hole by $10 billion
by July 1" (Sacramento Bee 4-24-01).
=====================================
|
4,310 |
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/13846.
=====================================
Jeff:
As agreed, we will send you an invoice showing a total current balance in
2704-140 for $15,000, including fees and costs. Payment of that amount will
completely clear your account. We will not perform any more work on the
file until the proposed decision is issued, and at that time, we will
perform all work which you and I agree upon on an hourly fee basis. Thank
you for your cooperation. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:52 AM
To: MBD
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Thanks, Mike.
I prefer the $15,000/clean slate option. For comments on the proposed
decision and lobbying on this specific case, I'm willing to go straight
hourly basis, but I will continue to request fixed prices going foward.
And worry not, it's not a Rick, Paul, Steffes issue. I'm the headache.
All this said, and budget haggling aside, I'm sure you're aware that it's
my view that 1) you do fantastic work and 2) it's great to work with you.
Best,
Jeff
MBD
<[email protected] To: "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
om> cc:
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas
Restructuring Activities
10/10/2000
12:14 PM
Jeff:
You are quite correct about the facts of the arrangement. However,
between
the previous fixed price deal we did on the alternative settlement and
this
most recent agreement, we have lost $10,000 plus $12,500 for a total of
$22,500 on this one case. In both situations, our hours were required by
the expanded press of the work in the hearing, and the uncertainty that is
involved in estimating the cost of hearing work is always difficult to deal
with. As you will no doubt recall, on our last arrangement, I provided an
estimate that was much closer to what we have acutally spent on the GRI
hearing and briefing to date, which you then proceeded to propose paring on
an essentially arbitrary basis. I unable to plead anything other than
brain
disfunction as to why I agreed with your numbers, which I knew would be too
low. So here we are. In response to your proposal, I offer two
suggestions, one: we should split the difference between the estimate and
the actuals to date. That would mean you would pay $19,761 of the current
balance. On that basis, we would prepare written comments and lobby for
the
proposed decision when it comes out at no additional cost. Two: you pay
only the $15,000 that you propose ($13,500 plus the extra $1500), but we
clean the slate and start over on the file and any written comments or
lobbying on the proposed decision are paid for on a straight hourly basis.
I think either solution is fair to both sides. We continue to absorb
losses, but get some additional compensation, you pay a bit more, but no
more than is fair, and there is still substantial commercial value in the
outcome of the case to warrant the regulatory expense. If you want me to
explain the situation to Paul or Rick or Steffes in order to assist in
justifying the additional expense, I would be more than happy to do so.
Thank you, and I mean this sincerely, for considering our request for a
revision of the billing arrangements. I am also willing to get together
today and talk about this face to face if you want. Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Mike:
We'd talked about getting together to discuss the bills for the case. We'd
originally agreed to a flat fee of $13, 500 (if memory serves) with a bonus
for coming in under the cap. You've sent me bills (as of August 17
according to my records) for over $25,000. As you recall, we had a very
lengthy discussion regarding the magnitude of the work associated with the
hearings and associated briefs. I stressed that $13.5 was what I'd spend
and that we'd have to do the best we could within that constraint, which is
why I pressed for a flat fee arrangement at the outset. With that in mind,
I believe that it's important to honor the arrangement. However, in light
of the particular circumstances in this case, I'm willing to exceed the
previous arrangement for a total of $15,000, but can't go above that. If
you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to talk about it. Let me
know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,311 |
Subject: Textbook case of Leadership... not
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4326.
=====================================
I've got Bilas's "winter of discontent." What a buffoon. It takes more guts
than a train robber to, on one hand, propose a spineless, ineffective
approach to dealing with what are now recognized as serious flaws in the
current regulatory structure, and in the same breath, go to the court of
public opinion and whine about a gas market spinning madly out of control.
Apparently, he's also setting the table for possible intervention in the
market by state lawmakers or regulators if we get any more "out of whack."
Are you going over to see Bilas today with Mike Day, et al.? Are we to
assume by Bilas's wishy-washy statements to the media that the Comprehensive
Settlement is still on the table? Thoughts, please.
Natural Gas Intelligence, Wednesday, December 6, 2000
CA Officials See Potential Gas Supply Problems
Some state officials already are dubbing the upcoming heating season as
California's "winter of discontent" as continued high wholesale natural gas
prices are driving up consumer bills and state regulators look at options for
unbundling Southern California Gas Co.'s transmission and storage system.
According to other state energy officials he talks with, Richard Bilas,
commissioner at the California Public Utilities Commission, said, "We could
have some real problems." Bilas, the former energy commissioner and
immediate-past president of the CPUC, has proposed a modest unbundling of
SoCalGas' system, given the current energy price volatility, in a proposed
settlement decision now being reviewed. Action on the proposed decision could
come Dec. 21, but observers predict alternate orders will be offered by some
of Bilas's colleagues on the five-member CPUC, and that could push into next
year final action.
If gas prices continue at their precedent-setting levels, California likely
will be intervening at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as it already
has been doing regarding last summer's electricity price spikes, Bilas said.
"There are a lot of things the state can do, but whether they are done is a
matter of philosophical and political judgment," he said. "If gas prices get
totally out whack in the view of a number of state decision-makers, there is
likely to be intervention on behalf of the state into gas pricing. And I
don't know if any of that serves the public well in the long run, but this is
a short-run political problem."
As for his proposed decision on settlement for the unbundling of the
SoCalGas's system, Bilas is unsure at this point if it will stimulate a more
robust core aggregation market --- now almost a decade old --- with added
volumes and marketers. He said he needs to hear from participants in the
market in response to the proposed decision, which basically adopts the more
modest compromise of three different settlements filed with the CPUC.
"I'll know better where this proposed decision is going in another two weeks
after I have talked with the other commissioners and some of the parties,"
said Bilas, noting that the pending gas settlements should be the last major
changes in California's gas market for awhile, unless the state legislature
decides to get involved as it has on several occasions in the past three
years.
"Everything to do with gas matters statewide is on the table and I am not
going to make any predictions," Bilas said during a telephone interview in
which he expressed concerns about both natural gas and electricity issues in
California in the coming year. He said the supply-demand imbalance for the
state's electricity market needs long-term solutions, but he thinks
short-term political answers will win out.
Bilas said the recent state energy commission conclusion that California's
electricity needs can be met with the existing plants underway or proposed
could pan out, but only if an unlikely combination of three factors converge:
all the plants now on the drawing board actually get built, no major electric
or gas transmission bottlenecks occur, and energy prices stabilize.
"Even if all of the proposed plants came on line in two years rather than
three, I think we still would have problems," he said. "Let's face it, demand
for electricity in the Pacific Northwest and California is growing like
crazy. So, until there is something done on the demand side, so we get some
demand responsiveness, just attacking the supply side I don't think is going
to do it."
=====================================
|
4,312 |
Subject: Commencement, Sunday, May 20
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12171.
=====================================
CONGRATULATIONS GRADUATES!
The commencement ceremony will be held on Sunday, May 20 in the Greek
Theatre. Graduates should arrive at 8:15 a.m. (The ceremony begins at
9:00 a.m.) The ceremony will be followed by a champagne reception at the
Kleeberger Sports Lawn, across the street from Haas.
You'll find commencement information at the Haas Alumni Network at:
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/alumni/newgrads/evmba.html
ARRIVING/PREPARATION FOR CEREMONY:
The Greek Theater is just north of Haas, or left of us if you were to walk
OUT of the Haas building. It is on the east side of Gayley/Piedmont. You
should arrive back stage (by entering from the street side) by 8:15 a.m.
Once back stage, please go to the MBA table (you'll see the Evening MBA
staff there), and print your name on an index card as you would like it
read by Diane. You will keep the card with you and pass it to her on stage.
After you arrive, PLEASE stay backstage and assemble at the end of the area
closest toward Haas (south).
PARKING:
Anyone can park on campus on Sundays. Some lots will have attendant
parking. Otherwise just buy a $5 daily parking ticket from one of the
machines and display it on your dashboard. If you do so, you can park
pretty much anywhere on campus ("C," "F" or "S" lots) *except* in any VIP
or otherwise reserved parking spaces. You can use your permit for your
car. There is parking on the street, in Kleeberger, Foothill (up Hearst
past Gayley/Piedmont and to your right), or at the corner of Hearst and
Gayley.
A bit of personal parking advice: traffic gets very thick near the Haas
School on Commencement day. Remember that there will be another
department having its ceremony in the Greek Theatre after us, so
it will be especially congested on the way out. Park strategically, i.e. a
little bit down the hill and in the direction you eventually want to drive.
RECEPTION:
The reception will be held across the street from Haas on Kleeberger field.
If you have not picked up your two free tickets from us, please do so
before graduation. If you must, you can get them from us backstage, before
the ceremony--while supplies last. Otherwise, all tickets at the door will
be $5. You are admitted free in your cap and gown.
RETURNING REGALIA:
You will need to return your gown and hood in order to avoid being charged
for them. When you pick up your regalia in the Evening MBA office, we will
give you a yellow card receipt. REMEMBER to BRING the receipt with
you. After the reception, please tie the hood around the gown and attach
the receipt (we'll bring staplers) and deposit it in a box located near the
reception. You can keep the cap and tassel.
WEATHER:
Remember that the ceremony will be held RAIN OR SHINE. There is no indoor
facility on this campus large enough to accommodate Haas, and even if there
were, it would not be available on short notice if it's raining. The
ceremony is fairly long. Remember that MBAs, PhDs, and Undergraduates all
take part. Graduates and guests will be out in the elements for about two
and a half hours.
Both rain and shine each present challenges, especially for older or less
physically vigorous guests. Here are some tips, based on our past
experiences in the Greek Theatre:
RAIN - As you all know, the weather is unpredictable. If rain seems at
all likely you should:
1) Bring an umbrella
2) Wear clothing that you are not very fond of, as the dye in the gown can
run if it becomes wet.
3) Wear rain shoes.
4) Make sure your guests also have appropriate rain gear.
SHINE - If we are lucky, it will be sunny. On a sunny day, the Greek
Theatre can be very hot, even when the air temperature is moderate. If
it's sunny, you should:
1) Bring plenty of water to drink - there is a vendor selling drinks at
the Greek Theatre, but the lines can be very long and graduates won't be
able to leave during the Ceremony.
2) Advise your guests to bring hats, sunblock, water, etc.
3) Remind your out of town guests to dress in layers -- a sunny day
here usually means foggy for part of the ceremony and sunny for the rest.
EITHER WAY: Graduates will be seated on folding chairs, down close to the
stage. But your guests will be sitting on concrete for the duration. They
might consider bringing cushions.
Look forward to seeing all of you there, RAIN or SHINE.
If you have any questions, please give us a call us at 510-642-1406.
CONGRATULATIONS GRADUATES!
=====================================
|
4,313 |
Subject: Re: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9514.
=====================================
Upon research, it was discovered that this customer has two active meters in
two different Utilities (PG&E, and SOCAL) under the same contract. This is
the reason for the confusion. For tracking purposes, we "break-out" meters
by LDC in order to assign our customers to reps familiar with a particular
LDC. Those customers that have multiple LDC's under the same contract are
assigned to the same rep. This allows the customers to speak to the same
individual for all of their accounts.
Unfortunately the site in question was identified in error as a single site
only. The site in PG&E was assigned to Dennis Harris, while the site in
SOCAL, because of the low usage, was identified for transition to SOCAL.
This was not our intention. The data has been realigned and Dennis Harris
now has access to both records.
I spoke to Dennis regarding this issue, and he will contact the customer,
explain why it occurred, stop the transition to SOCAL for this site, should
the customer choose to; as well as coordinate a renewal for this customer
going forward, as their current agreement is to expire 05/31/01.
Catherine Woods
02/28/2001 08:53 AM
To: Foster
cc:
Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks
Can you indentify the owner of this record?
Thank you!
---------------------- Forwarded by Catherine Woods/DUB/EES on 02/28/2001
08:52 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 02/27/2001 05:47 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks
Catherine/Roger:
Here are some more details forwarded by our outside counsel.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 05:44 PM -----
MBD <[email protected]>
02/27/2001 05:25 PM
To: "'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'" <[email protected]>
cc: "'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'" <[email protected]>, "'Sue Mara at Enron
SF'" <[email protected]>
Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks
Jeff:
Here is some more useful information. Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC spoke to
the woman in person. The school in question is the Providence High School
in Burbank, California (not Ontario), operated by the Sisters of Providence.
Ms. Kathy Pentalio (sp?) at 818-846-8140 wrote to the CPUC asking about the
school's options after receiving phone and letter notification that their
gas service would be terminated by Enron. Apparently the Sisters also
operate a hospital which is also served by Enron. Ms. Pentalio indicated
that she was told that the school would no longer be served on the same
contract as the hospital (claimed to be an attractive 86 cents/th rate)
because the school's load was so small that it was a core customer, while
the hospital was a noncore customer with a larger load. Neither Ms.
Sarvate nor Ms. Pentalio was clear if the school was served as a core
aggregation customer or as part of the Sisters of Providence noncore
contract. Ms. Pentalio claimed she spoke with Enron employees Dennis Harris
in Dublin, Ohio as well as Roger Pons in New Mexico. She indicated that
service would be terminated on June 1, 2001 and she is looking for
alternative sources of gas.
Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC Energy Division would like to understand the
specifics of this case, but her main concern, and the purpose for sending a
letter (if she does send one) is that Dynergy has told her that a number of
small noncore businesses are being returned to the utilities by marketers
because they no longer meet credit requirements. She assumed that must be
true with Enron as well. I indicated to her that she should never assume
that we are doing what Dynegy is doing and that we would respond and advise
her if there was any significant trend of noncore customer turnbacks. The
Commission's concern, which I know you understand, is that it is phasing out
the core subscription schedule (and has a moratorium on switches to the
SoCalGas core subscription schedule) therefore leaving no place for such
customers to go if they cannot contract with a replacement aggregator.
Please advise me of what you discover about this matter and we can talk
further about a response to the CPUC. Thank you.
Mike Day
=====================================
|
4,314 |
Subject: RE: Gouger Gray Davis : California's petulant governor ignores
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12223.
=====================================
dunno. didn't say in the clips that miyung sent around.
Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate
07/31/2001 02:44 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: RE: Gouger Gray Davis : California's petulant governor ignores
reality as he overpays for electricity
where did this run?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:34 AM
To: [email protected]; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Denne, Karen;
[email protected]; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Kingerski, Harry; Robertson,
Linda; Landwehr, Susan M.; Guerrero, Janel
Subject: Gouger Gray Davis : California's petulant governor ignores reality
as he overpays for electricity
Gouger Gray Davis
California's petulant governor ignores reality as he overpays for electricity
LANCE T. IZUMI Mr. Izumi is a senior fellow in California Studies at the San
Francisco- based Pacific Research Institute.
On the surface, things seem to be going pretty good for Gov. Gray Davis with
regard to California's electricity crisis. The governor has scored some nice
publicity by switching on some new power plants. The weather has been
unseasonably cool. His poll numbers are edging back up. Yet beneath this
optimistic picture lie troubling problems. For example, Davis's argument that
out-of-state power generators are responsible for the electricity crisis has
been falling apart. For months, Davis has been claiming that private
generators have overcharged California by $8.9 billion and demanded that this
amount be refunded to the state. However, after a two-week mediation between
state officials and the generators, Curtis Wagner, the federal government's
chief energy regulatory judge, rebuked Davis's claim saying that such a huge
overcharge "has not and cannot be substantiated." Further, while the
generators may be liable to refund a much smaller amount to the state,
perhaps $1 billion, Wagner said that generators are owed more money by the
state than they owe the state in refunds: "Can a cash refund be required
where a much larger amount is due the seller? The chief judge thinks not."
Davis reacted to the judge's ruling by calling it a "raw deal" and by urging
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ignore the lack of evidence and
the judge's conclusions and to "step up and provide the refunds we've asked
for." Davis's position, as usual, is motivated purely by politics. Indeed,
Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee says that Davis is operating in a
"melodramatic virtual world" de-linked from reality.
Davis's blame-the-generators argument took another body blow when newly
released documents showed that, on average, major out-of-state power
companies such as Enron, Duke, Dynergy and Mirant charged less than the
average prices paid by the state during the first three months of the year.
California government utilities, on the other hand, such as the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD), charged the state much more for electricity than the out-of-state
generators. For example, while Texas-based Enron, a favorite Davis whipping
boy, charged an average $181 per megawatt hour, SMUD charged an average $330
per megawatt hour.
Davis responded to this revelation in typical political fashion. A Davis
spokesman said that the governor had expressed his anger at "the generators
who wear cowboy hats" and that "just because there are other entities that
are charging us more doesn't change the fact that we are getting ripped off
by companies from Houston, Tulsa, Atlanta or Charlotte."
Yet, for all Davis' feigned indignation about consumers being ripped off, it
turns out that he and his regulators are poised to ensure that business
consumers are ripped off by state government. Davis has signed $43 billion in
ill-advised long-term purchase contracts at rates above-market-price. The
state must, therefore, ensure that enough business customers remain in the
current state-controlled distribution system to pay for high-priced state
power purchases. This is especially important to Davis since the high prices
are borne disproportionately by business. Thus, Davis' regulators are set to
eliminate "direct access," which allows businesses to shop for cheaper power.
Who's the real gouger? No matter how much Davis points the finger,
Californians are paying dearly for his political opportunism and bad
policies.
=====================================
|
4,315 |
Subject: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2558.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 10/20/2000 01:24 PM -----
=09Yahoo! Finance <[email protected]>
=0910/20/2000 11:54 AM
=09Please respond to ldyer
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected]
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power=
market=20
reform proposals
Douglas L. Dyer ([email protected]) has sent you a news article=20
Personal message:=20
Yahoo - SDG&E files Calif. power market reform proposals
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001020/n20262785.html=20
=09Home - Yahoo! - Help
=09
[ Latest Headlines Market Overview | News Alerts ]
Related Quotes
EIX
PCG
SRE
20 7/8
27 3/4
20 3/8
-1/8
-7/16
+0
delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Friday October 20, 11:18 am Eastern Time
SDG&E files Calif. power market reform proposals
SAN DIEGO, Oct 20 (Reuters) - San Diego Gas and Electric, the utility whose=
=20
customers faced a near tripling in their electricity bills this summer, fil=
ed=20
a plan with federal regulators on Friday designed to address some of the=20
problems with California's deregulated power market.
The utility, a unit of Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE - news), filed a 17-point pl=
an=20
that included a temporary price cap for wholesale power prices of $100 per=
=20
megawatt hour and a reorganization of the California Independent System=20
Operator (ISO), which operates most of the state's electricity grid.
``Despite the cooler weather and lower statewide demand we recently have be=
en=20
experiencing, the high wholesale electric prices out customers have endured=
=20
this summer are not subsiding,'' said SDG&E chairman Edwin Guiles.
``We need federal regulators to take swift and immediate action in addressi=
ng=20
the fundamental structural defects in California's deregulated marketplace=
=20
that have contributed to electricity prices that we believe are neither jus=
t=20
nor reasonable,'' he added.
Earlier this week the state's two other investor- owned utilities, PG&E Cor=
p=20
(NYSE:PCG - news) unit Pacific Gas and Electric and Edison International=20
(NYSE:EIX - news) subsidiary Southern California Edison also filed in suppo=
rt=20
of a $100 price cap along with consumer group, the Utility Reform Network=
=20
(TURN).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating=
=20
California's power market after prices soared to record levels this year.=
=20
There have been allegations that rates were not ``just and reasonable'' as=
=20
required under federal regulations.
The California ISO cut its cap on wholesale prices twice this year from an=
=20
initial $750 per MWh to a final $250 but drew criticism from some for not=
=20
cutting the cap faster.
The agency's board of governors includes representatives of a wide range of=
=20
organisations including independent power producers, who have made huge=20
profits this summer with prices soaring to record levels, as well as consum=
er=20
groups, investor owned utilities and municipal utilities.
SDG&E called for the removal of ``economically based stakeholders'' from th=
e=20
board of governors and for also a reduction in its size.
``The current stakeholder board is to large to be effective and apparently=
=20
incapable of adopting the structural change necessary to support workable=
=20
competition,'' the utility said.
Customers of SDG&E were the first in the country to pay market-based prices=
=20
without a safety net under the terms of California's trailblazing power=20
market regulation.
State legislators intervened this year and imposed a price cap on SDG&E=20
retail rates after reports that pensioners were turning off their=20
refrigerators in a bid to avoid running up massive bills after rates triple=
d.
The state's power problems are rooted partly in increased loads linked to t=
he=20
nation's booming economy, with Western states among those showing the faste=
st=20
growth.
There also have been few power plants built during the past 10 years, and=
=20
although many are now planned, the prolonged approval and construction=20
process means most will not come on line before 2002.=20
Email this story - View most popular stories emailed
More Quotes
and News:=09Edison International (NYSE:EIX - news)
=09PG&E Corp (NYSE:PCG - news)
=09Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE - news)
=09Related News Categories: US Market News
Help
Copyright =01, 2000 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Privacy Policy - Terms =
of=20
Service
Questions or Comments?
=====================================
|
4,316 |
Subject: CA Air Quality Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4802.
=====================================
I just got an update from Mary Schoen, who covers Calif. air quality rules at
Enron (Environmental Strategies Group)
As of today there has been very little movement to relax the restriction on
the number of hours a plant can run. The Governor encouraged, back in Feb,
AQMDs to relax standards and created an emission offset bank for new
resources. However, the EPA must be involved in any relaxation of run-time
restrictions and they are doing so only in return for increased control
technology (e.g. SCR). Deals are in the works but none have been announced.
In terms of peakers, we are not aware of any projects have resulted from the
Governor's initiative because the projects hit local siting restrictions.
There appears to be no contingency plan in place to suspend restrictions once
blackouts occur more frequently. No one ones to be blamed for violating the
clean air act.
Mary and other folks from Environmental Strategies will be in Portland on
4/16. I plan on setting up a meeting with traders. Please tell me of your
interest in attending.
Alan Comnes
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT on 03/21/2001 09:13
AM ---------------------------
From: Mary Schoen@ENRON on 02/22/2001 02:55 PM CST
To: Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jubran
Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Kristin Walsh/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clayton Seigle/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Jeffrey Keeler/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: CA Supply Realities
Attached is a memo comparing the CEC's forecasted supply and a more realistic
look at what additional resources might be available this summer.
The bottom line is that:
1. The CEC significantly underestimates the outages that may occur this
summer. They estimate in their 5,000 MW supply deficit for the summer that
expected outages will be around 3,000MW. However, November and December saw
significantly higher outage levels. (7,265 MWs) The FERC has investigated
these outages and found no improprieties- just that the plants are overtaxed
from running at higher than normal capacities.
2. There are a lot of uncertainties surrounding the 1,244 MWs of projected
supply from rerating/restarting existing thermal and renewable projects. It
is very unclear how much of this will be able to come on line by this summer,
if at all. As evidenced by the e-mail I sent out this morning, local
communities may be very opposed to restarting shut down units. In addition,
these units are likely to be uneconomical.
3. In the existing resource pool, there are roughly 1,430 MWs of peaking or
other generation units that are running up against their operating hour
limitations from air quality regulations. The Governor has ordered the local
air quality districts to address these restrictions, We are beginning to
seem some movement; however, the US EPA has yet to weigh in on these relaxed
standards.
4. The distributed generation/back-up generation capacity to make up some of
the shortfall is still an unknown. While there has been some relaxing of the
limitations on run hours for back-up generation at "essential public
services" the increase in DG is expected from "clean" sources, not diesel
emergency generators.
5. The CEC is doing everything it can to get 50+ MW peaking units on-line by
this summer. They are promising a 21-day permit application approval process
and are offering to pay half of the cost of offsets, for "clean" sources of
generation in critical areas.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
CEC's Summer Forecasted Peak Demand - Resource Balance:
List of Peakers running into their operating hour limitations:
Also available in hard copy format only:
(please e-mail me your fax number if you'd like a copy)
Table 1: Fully Executed CA ISO Summer Reliability Agreements (the ISO
Peaking Facilities)
Table 2: Summer 2001 Supply Options - Renewables Construction Status Summary
Table 3: Summer 2001 Supply Options - Rerate of Non-CEC Projects
Table 4: Summer 2001 Supply Options - CEC Rerate Status Summary
Table 5: Idle Biomass Plants Potentially Capable of Restart
Mary Schoen
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-345-7422
=====================================
|
4,317 |
Subject: Enron Mentions - 4/06/2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10757.
=====================================
California Generators' Shares Tumble on Bankruptcy (Update1)
Bloomberg, 04/06/2001
Bear Stearns's Kevin Boone on Pacific Gas & Electric: Comment
Bloomberg, 04/06/2001
California Generators' Shares Tumble on Bankruptcy (Update1)
(Adds Enron comment and updates share prices. For more on the
California electricity crisis, see {EXTRA <GO>}.)
Houston, April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of California power-
sellers Mirant Corp., Duke Energy Corp. and Dynegy Inc. fell more
than 9 percent after Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's
largest utility, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
``The concern with the generators is clearly that they're not
going to get paid anywhere near (the price) they sold power for to
the California grid,'' said David Schanzer, a Janney Montgomery
Scott LLC analyst.
Shares of Atlanta-based Mirant, which owns California plants
able to produce enough power to light 3 million homes, fell as
much as 10 percent to $27.70 earlier. The stock was down 94 cents
at $29.96 in late trading.
Charlotte-based Duke, which produces 3,000 megawatts, or
about 5 percent of the state's power, fell $2.20 to $40.20 after
reaching $38.44, down 9.3 percent. A megawatt is enough to light
1,000 typical U.S. homes.
Houston-based Dynegy, which controls 2,800 megawatts of power
in a partnership with NRG Energy Inc. of Minneapolis, fell $3.11
to $47.81 after falling as much as 9.7 percent to $46. NRG Energy
shares fell $1.50 to $29.90.
Calpine Corp., a San Jose, California-based generator and
power-plant developer, fell $5.04, or 9.9 percent, to $45.60.
Houston-based Reliant fell $1.85 to $43.50. Tulsa, Oklahoma-based
Williams Cos. fell $1.17 to $40.70.
Enron Corp. of Houston, which sells power and natural gas in
California, fell $1.56 to $54.14. Enron's exposure to Pacific Gas
& Electric ``will not have any material effect on earnings or our
financial condition,'' Enron spokesman Vance Meyer said. Enron is
the world's biggest energy trader.
Pacific Gas & Electric, owned by San Francisco-based PG&E
Corp., and Edison International's Southern California Edison, the
state's second-largest utility, together have losses of more than
$14 billion because they paid more for electricity than state
regulators allowed them to charge consumers.
Shares of PG&E fell $4.31, or 38 percent, to $7.07. Trading
was halted earlier before the bankruptcy announcement. Edison fell
$4.49, or 36 percent, to $8.15. The company said it still expected
the state to work out a plan to end the energy crisis.
--Margot Habiby in the Dallas newsroom (214) 740-0873, or
[email protected], with reporting by Mark Johnson in
Princeton, through the Princeton newsroom,
(609) 279-4000/taw/alp/p
Bear Stearns's Kevin Boone on Pacific Gas & Electric: Comment
2001-04-06 16:47 (New York)
(For more stories on the California energy crisis, see
{EXTRA <GO>}
New York, April 6 (Bloomberg) -- The following are comments
made by Kevin Boone, a bond analyst at Bear Stearns & Co., on the
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection by PG&E Corp.'s
Pacific Gas & Electric, California's largest investor-owned
utility.
``It's obviously a big surprise. I'm not sure it's going to
be the most constructive way to solve the issue, but it may
eliminate the political element of the equation, make it a matter
of law and keep the extraneous things out of the equation.
``There really were too many cooks in the kitchen. This will
isolate it, so to speak, and get the parties in a room together
where they can hammer out the desired objective.''
``PG&E obviously thought this was a way to push the
negotiations along and create a more favorable result. Going
through the channels they were going through wasn't going to get
them a solution to the problem.''
On Davis' televised speech on the energy crisis Thursday night:
``I thought his comments were a step in the right direction.
I thought they were very positive. PG&E was not looking for a
small step. They were looking for a giant leap to the solution of
this problem.''
On market reaction:
``Certainly with the selloff we've seen today with both
Edison and PG&E in the equity market, it indicates it's a
potential stumbling block'' for Edison International and Sempra
Energy to reach bailout agreements with the state.
--Mark Johnson in the Princeton newsroom. (609) 279-4017 or
[email protected]/pjm
=====================================
|
4,318 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/983.
=====================================
Internet
B2Bs Rose Hard and Fell Hard Once Before. Time for Act Two?
By Joe Bousquin
Staff Reporter
8/30/00 9:22 PM ET
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/tech/internet/1060952.html
Beware the booming B2Bs.
Several business-to-business stocks rocketed upward Wednesday on little news
as the Nasdaq waffled for most of the day. While some market watchers said
investors were betting on a strong quarter, many analysts couldn't explain
increases of 15% or more in stocks like Commerce One (CMRC:Nasdaq), Ventro
(VNTR:Nasdaq), PurchasePro.com (PPRO:Nasdaq) and Clarus (CLRS:Nasdaq).
Big Day for B2B
Several of the stocks rallied Wednesday on little news.
"You've got me," says Bill Epifanio, B2B analyst at J.P. Morgan. "They're all
going nuts on nothing."
Since earnings season ended, sentiment about B2B stocks has shifted back to
the rose-colored variety in this sector. While this change is based on the
concrete results that companies like Ariba (ARBA:Nasdaq), i2 Technologies
(ITWO:Nasdaq) and FreeMarkets (FMKT:Nasdaq) delivered, investors also may
want to pause and reflect. After all, it was only this past spring that
investors grabbed any B2B stock within reach on hopes of unlimited growth,
only to have them come crashing back down.
Focus
"Before, we were buying stocks on promises of what they could be, and that's
when it got out of hand," says Eric Upin, B2B analyst at Robertson Stephens.
"Now, you've got to focus on which stocks are delivering lots of growth and
revenue."
Upin looks to Ariba and i2 Technologies as examples of companies that are
actually delivering. (He rates both a buy, and his firm hasn't done
underwriting for either.)
Ariba recorded $153 million in deferred revenue in the most recent quarter.
Deferred revenue is money that a company collects before it actually delivers
a product or does its job. It's a good signal, because if people are willing
to pay before a company gives them something in return, it means there's
strong demand. Ariba was up $8, or 6%, to $152.50.
i2 is considered a strong player in supply-chain management software, and it
has a partnership with Ariba and IBM (IBM:NYSE). It climbed $11.13, or 7%, to
$168.75.
Reaching?
But in a possible indication that investors may have just been reaching for
any B2B stock, Ventro finished up $2.69, or 21%, at $15.50 on no news. This
is the same company that upset analysts and investors with a poor
second-quarter performance, with just $1.8 million in net revenue. "Investors
need to be more careful regarding which of the B2Bs they select," adds David
Hilal, a B2B analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey. "When B2B was at its
highest, any company that used that acronym seemed to perform well. Now, you
have to dig deeper and figure out which ones are the real players in this new
economy."
Meanwhile, one of the most interesting subplots Wednesday involved Commerce
One. On no real news -- there was talk about an already announced deal --
Commerce One shot up $10.88, or 21%, to $63.25.
There's been a lot of chatter about the company lately. Gossips love to talk
about how its partnership with German software maker SAP (SAP:NYSE ADR) might
lead to a merger. Then there's the persistent rumor that the two companies
will soon announce two more Internet exchanges for major industry groups. On
top of that, Covisint, the big auto exchange that Commerce One is helping
build, is setting up to launch near the end of September.
Lump that in with the fact that Commerce One's stock has slouched in Ariba's
shadow lately, add a dash of Wednesday's positive sector sentiment, and
you've got the most active stock on the Nasdaq Wednesday. It traded more than
27 million shares, whereas it usually trades 6.6 million.
Ready to Bolt
Gavin Mlinar, an analyst at Sands Brothers, says the stock has been setting
up for a move for a while.
"September is a big month for them; they have so much on the table for a
potential lift," Mlinar says. He's been crowing about Commerce One since
mid-August, when he said the company was starting to look more attractive
than Ariba on a valuation basis.
And overall, Mlinar contends that conditions were right for a B2B run.
"The emphasis and momentum has clearly been building lately," he says. "There
wasn't much, on a broad basis, since April, and now we're seeing a total
rotation into these names."
Which is just what some observers are cautioning against.
=====================================
|
4,319 |
Subject: Weekly California Update Conference Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/582.
=====================================
gngr
713-853-7751
----- Forwarded by Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron on 07/16/2001 01:22 PM -----
=09Ginger Dernehl 06/18/2001 12:55 PM =09 To: Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGat=
e, Andre Cangucu/Enron@EnronXGate, Andrew S Fastow/Enron@EnronXGate, cbone@=
wyattfirm.com, [email protected], Christian Yoder/Enron@EnronXGate, Christop=
her F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate, Cliff Baxter/Enron@EnronXGate, Dan Leff/HOU/=
EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Donald M Black/Enron@EnronXGate, Eli=
zabeth Tilney/HOU/EES@EES, Eric Letke/HOU/EES@EES, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EE=
S, Greg Wolfe/Enron@EnronXGate, Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kinger=
ski/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jame=
s Derrick/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Rudolph/=
HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joh=
n J Lavorato/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Keith Holst/En=
ron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karen S Owens@ees@EES, Mark=
E Haedicke/Enron@EnronXGate, Mark Koenig/Enron@EnronXGate, Mark Metts/Enro=
n@EnronXGate, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Mart=
y Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Michael P Moran/Enron@EnronXG=
ate, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Mike Grig=
sby/Enron@EnronXGate, Mitchell Taylor/Enron@EnronXGate, Paul Kaufman/Enron@=
EnronXGate, Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard B Sanders/Enron@Enron=
XGate, Richard Causey/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Ric=
k Buy/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Badeer/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Johnston/Enr=
on@EnronXGate, Robert Williams/ENRON@enronxgate, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@E=
NRON, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Shari Stack/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shelia Benke/Enro=
n@EnronXGate, Shelley Corman/Enron@EnronXGate, Stephen Swain/Enron@EnronXGa=
te, Steve C Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Ma=
ra/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Thomas E White/HOU/EES@EES, =
Tim Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Travis McCullough/Enron@EnronXGate, Vicki Shar=
p/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Wendy Conwell/Enron@EnronXGate, Wil=
liam S Bradford/Enron@EnronXGate, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janel G=
uerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Thome/N=
A/Enron@Enron, Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron@Enron, Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELO=
PMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: Anna Mehrer/Enron@EnronXGate, Bernadette Hawki=
ns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Beverly Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Binky Davidson/HOU/EES@EES, =
Bridget Maronge/Enron@EnronXGate, Carol Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Cindy Derecske=
y/Corp/Enron@Enron, Debra Davidson/Enron@EnronXGate, Dolores Fisher/Enron@E=
nronXGate, Emy Geraldo/Enron@EnronXGate, Esmeralda Hinojosa/HOU/EES@EES, Gi=
nger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Jan M King/Enron@EnronXGate, Janette Elbertson=
/Enron@EnronXGate, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen K Heathman/Enron@Enro=
nXGate, Kathryn Sheppard/Enron@EnronXGate, Kay Chapman/HOU/EES@EES, Kimberl=
y Hillis/Enron@EnronXGate, Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Leticia Botello/HOU/EES=
@EES, Lora Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lysa Akin/Enron@EnronXGate, Maureen M=
cVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Mercy Gil/Enron@EnronXGate, Mollie Gustafson/Enron@=
EnronXGate, Paula Warren/HOU/EES@EES, Robert Hermann/Enron@EnronXGate, Rosa=
linda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Rosario Boling/Enron@EnronXGate, Rubena Buerger=
/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ruth Ann Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Ruth Mann=
/Enron@EnronXGate, Sharon Purswell/Enron@EnronXGate, Sharron Westbrook/Enro=
n@EnronXGate, Stephanie Harris/Enron@EnronXGate, Stephanie Truss/Enron@Enro=
nXGate, Susan Skarness/Enron@EnronXGate, Twanda Sweet/Enron@EnronXGate, vsc=
[email protected], Jody Underwood/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Weekly Califor=
nia Update Conference Call=09
The Government Affairs group continues to have a weekly California update c=
onference call every Monday at 10:30 am (CDT). However, we have decided to=
change the passcode information to ensure Enron privacy. Please make note=
of the new passcode on your schedules.
Date:=09=09Weekly on Monday's
Time:=09=0910:30 am (CDT)
Number:=091-800-998-2462 (domestic)
=09=09703-736-7230
=09=09passcode (5330893)
Location:=09EB4701
Also, if you feel there is someone within Enron that should get this change=
notice, please feel free to forward this information to them.
Thanks and call me if you have any questions.
gngr
713-853-7751
=====================================
|
4,320 |
Subject: LADWP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28564.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron on 07/10/2001 07:47 PM -----
"Leopold, Jason" <[email protected]>
07/10/2001 07:32 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: LADWP
=DJ LADWP, Run By Davis Adviser, Cashed In On Calif Crisis
Dow Jones Capital Markets Report via Dow Jones
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--On a single day in June 2000, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, the largest municipal utility in the country,
raked in $5 million selling California surplus power for $1,000 a
megawatt-hour
- about 30 times the average price the utility charged the month before.
That sale, reported by the California Independent System Operator and
confirmed by the LADWP in an interview last June, was one of many instances
in
which the municipal utility cashed in on California's power crisis.
On Monday, the Department of Water Resources, the agency that has been
purchasing California's bulk power needs in lieu of the state's
cash-strapped
utilities, released a detailed report of spot-market power purchases showing
the
LADWP charged the state an average of $242 a megawatt-hour for power from
Jan.
18 through May 31 this year. That price is about $35 higher than those
charged
by most of the out-of-state generators Gov. Gray Davis has criticized
repeatedly
as price gougers.
Potentially embarrassing for the Davis administration, however, is that
the
LADWP was formerly run by General Manager David Freeman, who in April became
Davis' top energy adviser.
Steve Maviglio, press secretary to Davis, said Texas-based generators are
primarily to blame for the high wholesale prices that crippled the state's
two
largest utilities.
"Anywhere they wear cowboy hats, they probably have handkerchiefs across
their
face, because they are robbing us blind," he said. "The bad guys are clearly
the
out-of-state generators."
Freeman's trademark is a white Stetson.
The former LADWP chief, who last September quipped that a "blind pig could
make money" under California's faulty deregulation setup, didn't return
calls
for comment.
Freeman took a leave of absence from the LADWP in January to negotiate
long-term power contracts on behalf of the state.
Power To Sell
According to the DWR report, the LADWP brought in $331 million selling
power
to the state between Jan. 18 and May 31 this year.
The LADWP, which didn't take part in the state's deregulation debacle and
which isn't under the jurisdiction of federal energy regulators, also cashed
in
throughout 2000. The utility has 7,000 megawatts of generation capacity but
only
needs about 5,500 MW to serve its retail customers, freeing it to sell as
much
as 1,000 megawatts to the ISO at prices comparable to what the generators
were
charging.
The LADWP did so well that it was able to pay down $200 million in debt
and
will reduce its customers' rates in 2002.
"It just shows you that enterprise is where you find it," Freeman said in
an
interview last year.
Last July, ratings agency Fitch concluded that California's electricity
shortage provided LADWP "an opportunity for the sale of surplus power at
favorable prices which added to the municipal system's coffers."
According to a report by the ISO, manager of the state's electricity grid,
the
LADWP overcharged California for power from May 2000 through February 2001
by as
much as $20 million. Maviglio said the state will pursue refunds from the
utility.
On Tuesday, an LADWP spokesman defended the utility's power prices, saying
the
costs of producing electricity were extremely high.
The ISO has estimated that the state was overcharged nearly $9 billion for
electricity sales in the 12 months ended May 2001. On Monday, settlement
talks
between state officials and generators over the refunds broke down.
Other municipal utilities, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District
and private companies like BC Hydro in Canada, have also racked up enormous
sums
selling surplus power to California at the last minute.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 07-10-01
1557EDT
(AP-DJ)--07-10-01 1557EDT
:TICKER: EIX PCG SRE
:SUBJECT: EUTL CA COBO MU PETR
Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones and Company, Inc.
Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 7/10/01 12:57 PM
=====================================
|
4,321 |
Subject: Re: Gouger Gray Davis :
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29325.
=====================================
These are the people to whom Western Power Trading Forum is contributing
funds for a paper on the electricity crisis.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
07/31/2001 09:33 AM
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/Enron@EnronXGate, James D
Steffes/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen Denne/Enron@EnronXGate, [email protected],
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Harry
Kingerski/Enron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Susan M
Landwehr/Enron@EnronXGate, Janel Guerrero/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: Gouger Gray Davis :
California's petulant governor ignores reality as he overpays for electricity
Gouger Gray Davis
California's petulant governor ignores reality as he overpays for electricity
LANCE T. IZUMI Mr. Izumi is a senior fellow in California Studies at the San
Francisco- based Pacific Research Institute.
On the surface, things seem to be going pretty good for Gov. Gray Davis with
regard to California's electricity crisis. The governor has scored some nice
publicity by switching on some new power plants. The weather has been
unseasonably cool. His poll numbers are edging back up. Yet beneath this
optimistic picture lie troubling problems. For example, Davis's argument that
out-of-state power generators are responsible for the electricity crisis has
been falling apart. For months, Davis has been claiming that private
generators have overcharged California by $8.9 billion and demanded that this
amount be refunded to the state. However, after a two-week mediation between
state officials and the generators, Curtis Wagner, the federal government's
chief energy regulatory judge, rebuked Davis's claim saying that such a huge
overcharge "has not and cannot be substantiated." Further, while the
generators may be liable to refund a much smaller amount to the state,
perhaps $1 billion, Wagner said that generators are owed more money by the
state than they owe the state in refunds: "Can a cash refund be required
where a much larger amount is due the seller? The chief judge thinks not."
Davis reacted to the judge's ruling by calling it a "raw deal" and by urging
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ignore the lack of evidence and
the judge's conclusions and to "step up and provide the refunds we've asked
for." Davis's position, as usual, is motivated purely by politics. Indeed,
Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee says that Davis is operating in a
"melodramatic virtual world" de-linked from reality.
Davis's blame-the-generators argument took another body blow when newly
released documents showed that, on average, major out-of-state power
companies such as Enron, Duke, Dynergy and Mirant charged less than the
average prices paid by the state during the first three months of the year.
California government utilities, on the other hand, such as the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD), charged the state much more for electricity than the out-of-state
generators. For example, while Texas-based Enron, a favorite Davis whipping
boy, charged an average $181 per megawatt hour, SMUD charged an average $330
per megawatt hour.
Davis responded to this revelation in typical political fashion. A Davis
spokesman said that the governor had expressed his anger at "the generators
who wear cowboy hats" and that "just because there are other entities that
are charging us more doesn't change the fact that we are getting ripped off
by companies from Houston, Tulsa, Atlanta or Charlotte."
Yet, for all Davis' feigned indignation about consumers being ripped off, it
turns out that he and his regulators are poised to ensure that business
consumers are ripped off by state government. Davis has signed $43 billion in
ill-advised long-term purchase contracts at rates above-market-price. The
state must, therefore, ensure that enough business customers remain in the
current state-controlled distribution system to pay for high-priced state
power purchases. This is especially important to Davis since the high prices
are borne disproportionately by business. Thus, Davis' regulators are set to
eliminate "direct access," which allows businesses to shop for cheaper power.
Who's the real gouger? No matter how much Davis points the finger,
Californians are paying dearly for his political opportunism and bad
policies.
=====================================
|
4,322 |
Subject: Lynch continues to take shots at DWR's LT contracts
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/571.
=====================================
FYI. See highlighted comments below. Don't know if you've heard, but there's considerable talk about Davis trying to get the bonds out via Executive Order. How that might work technically is unclear---at the end of the day, Lynch & Co. have to approve any ratepayer funds used to service the bonds. Perhaps Davis is thinking about shifting the burden to taxpayers generally. In off line conversations with JP Morgan people, they're saying the Executive Order route is "doable," but they ain't giving any details. We're trying to find out more.
Alternative SDG&E debt plan to get hearings
Approval of the governor's plan for paying the $747 million debt SDG&E says it is owed by its customers appeared less certain yesterday, as the president of the state utilities commission said she planned to hold public hearings for an alternative proposal.
Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in a local radio interview that regulators will hold hearings in San Diego regarding a plan from consumer groups that purports to save customers about $185 million more than the governor's proposal.
The groups said the earlier plan negotiated between the governor and the utility would be costly for consumers and a windfall for San Diego Gas & Electric.
At stake is how much SDG&E contributes and how much customers pay toward the debt, which accumulated in a so-called balancing account when SDG&E paid more for electricity than it was able to collect from customers during the power crisis.
Despite the plan for hearings, Lynch told KPBS-FM radio that the commission would make a final decision about how to resolve the controversial $747 million debt by November.
The governor and SDG&E announced their plan in June, saying it required the utility to contribute $319 million toward the debt and eliminated the balancing account without lengthy litigation or raising rates.
Consumer groups, led by the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, say the governor's plan does not go far enough, particularly because SDG&E earned an estimated $400 million in profits from the sale of electricity during the power crisis.
Under the governor's plan, those profits are awarded to the company's shareholders, though SDG&E would use $219 million from the profits as part of its $319 million contribution toward the debt.
Under the consumer groups' plan, SDG&E would be allowed to keep some of the profits, but it would contribute $72 million more than it would under the governor's plan. The alternative plan also would require the utility to make other monetary concessions.
In a formal decision earlier this year, the California utilities commission said SDG&E's profits do belong to customers. SDG&E has sued to overturn the decision in court, but it has put the litigation on hold pending the utilities commission's resolution of the plan to pay the debt.
Michael Shames, executive director of UCAN, said yesterday that he was encouraged by Lynch's call for hearings on the consumer plan.
"There is $400 million at stake here," Shames said.
SDG&E said yesterday that it had not received formal notification about the hearings, nor had it yet seen the alternative plan for paying the debt.
A spokesman for the utility, however, repeated earlier comments that the company saw the alternative plan as an attempt to derail the PUC's process of considering the governor's plan.
Lynch also said yesterday that the utilities commission would continue to challenge the more than $40 billion in long-term electricity contracts signed by the state during the crisis.
Lynch said the agreements bind the state to overpriced power and are in violation of federal law requiring electricity rates to be "just and reasonable."
The utilities commission president said the contracts may be even more expensive than earlier thought because at least some of the power they bind California to purchase is not needed. The extra costs would damage businesses and family budgets, she said.
"If you have to pay three to four times more for energy, you don't have the money to grow your business or meet other needs of your family," Lynch said.
She also defended action by the commission last week that effectively delayed the sale of $12.5 billion in state bonds needed to pay power costs. Lynch said the commission supported a legislative proposal for floating the bonds, which would separate them from the long-term power contracts.
=====================================
|
4,323 |
Subject: PG&E Revised OFO Settlement Agreement of October 6
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/ofos/7.
=====================================
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or representative
of the recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in
error, please notify the sender at [email protected] or at (415) 973-6642 and
delete this message from your system. If there is a problem with the
format, please notify the sender in the same manner.
Lindsey, et al:
Attached is PG&E's revised OFO Settlement Agreement based on our discussion
and agreements at yesterday's Settlement Conference. Before getting into
the details, I want to thank Lindsey and the other active parties for their
diligence and willingness to negotiate constructively in order to reach
consensus.
The following highlights the changes, which are shown as revision-marks
against our September 24 proposal. We've added a couple of "clean-up"
changes not specifically addressed yesterday. I don't believe these should
cause any problem.
* "Significantly" is added under A. and B.1.
* In section B.1, we have inserted the term "Gas OFO Forum" so when we
talk about this forum outside the settlement, it has a specific name we all
recognize and agree to. We have made changes elsewhere in the document to
include this more formal title. We also included "or customer" as being
able to join the Forum.
* In B.2, we used the words provided yesterday by the parties with two
exceptions:
* First, the language was revised to make a six-month
comparison of OFO reductions, rather than a quarterly comparison as we
agreed, and
* Second, we added the word "other" to modify "members" in two
places so it is clear that PG&E is also a member of the Forum.
* In B.3, we changed the term "Settlement Parties" to "Gas OFO Forum"
to reflect the intent of the agreement.
* In B.4, we added the sentence at the end as requested, but, per our
discussion, did not remove our last sentence. We added more specific
language on the balancing account to be clearer, and noted that this issue
is not fully resolved pending feedback from a couple parties.
* In C.1.g, we used the language provided, removing the one sentence
as agreed, and we added a comma and an "a" in the last sentence.
* We did not include the proposed change from the parties for
C.1.f.(3) for more data, since per yesterday's discussion we already agreed
to provide that data elsewhere.
* In C.3.b.(7), we modified the language to reflect our discussion
that we would use a 100% Performance Factor for the first customer-specific
OFO, and then an average of the actual performance for subsequent
customer-specific OFOs, but not less than 50%. We also agree to post the
performance data and revised factor within 14 days of each customer-specific
OFO, and if another customer-specific OFO is needed in that period, to use
the prior factor. We also changed "Settlement Parties" to the "Gas OFO
Forum." Lastly, we changed the "next session" to "an ongoing basis" which
better fits the continuous nature of the data and adjustments.
* In C.4.a, although not discussed the group at the Settlement
Conference, Ron Oechsler, on behalf of Palo Alto, pointed out that our
description of the three days when cashouts were driven by market economics
was not quite correct. We have reviewed his comment and concur, and have
corrected the wording accordingly. This does not change this provision to
modify the cash-out prices.
* In C.5.e.(4), we added the monthly election option.
* In D.3.c, we added the suggested language, but changed "Settlement
Parties" to the "Gas OFO Forum."
* On Appendix A, Revised Tariffs, we added the new balancing account
which would be part of the Preliminary Statement in PG&E's gas tariffs. We
will send you a draft of this tariff sheet with the full package next week.
With the one loose end regarding the balancing account language, we believe
that this document reflects our agreement with the parties. We will follow
up with the motion, tariffs, and final settlement agreement after confirming
with Lindsey that we have captured yesterday's discussion accurately.
Again, thanks for all your active participation and support for getting this
Settlement completed.
Sincerely,
Patrick Golden
<<ofoOctober 6 Settlement Response.doc>>
- ofoOctober 6 Settlement Response.doc
=====================================
|
4,324 |
Subject: California Update 7/25/01----Meeting w/Assembly on Its Latest
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12139.
=====================================
Adding to Kristin's update, here's the summary of a meeting that just occured
with Assembly leadership staff and industry on the Assembly's latest version
of an "Edison MOU":
The Speaker's staffer said that if he had to bet at this time, he would bet
that the Assembly would not convene on Friday.
He also said that, if it doesn't happen on Friday, nothing will happen until
they get back from recess on the 20th of August.
The Assembly will let folks know by tonight or first thing tomorrow whether
they intend to move forward with a vote on Friday or recess.
From the most recent proposal released today by the Assembly leadership, it
appears that the centrist Democrats are prevailing. The proposal:
Retains Direct Access (though they said that they are continuing to be
pressured by the Treasurer, who wants DA suspended due to the bond issuance)
Places 80% of Edison's past debt with large customers (leaving 20% with small
customers, which business customers or strenuously opposing).
Eliminates all references to any purchase, or option to purchase, Edison's
transmission. (They said there simply ain't the votes to buy, or consider
buying, Edison's transmission in the Assembly)
Maintains the Senate provision, which would pay the banks, pay the QFs, but
place with Edison the risk of figuring out how to pay the $1billion owed to
suppliers. (Even the munis are begining to complain about those provisions.)
Creates a tradeable, renewable portfolio standard (conceptually similar to
the one created in Texas).
The new bill is created by 1) amending SB78 and 2) gutting a different bill
passed from the Senate to the Assembly, SB39, and replacing it with the new
version of 82XX. The two would go together to create the Assembly's newest
proposal.
If this bill gets voted out of the Assembly, it will likely have a difficult
time getting the votes necessary to pass in the Senate, since the Senate has
considered and rejected several provisions currently included in the Assembly
version.
Will report back on whether the Assembly's going forward or adjourning for
recess as soon as we hear.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/25/2001 06:26 PM -----
Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate
07/25/2001 04:30 PM
To: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/ENRON@enronXgate, David
W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enronXgate, Christian Yoder/ENRON@enronXgate,
Steve C Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike Swerzbin/ENRON@enronXgate, Phillip K
Allen/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris
Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim
Heizenrader/ENRON@enronXgate, Vince J Kaminski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J
Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Rob Milnthorp/ENRON@enronXgate, Kevin M
Presto/ENRON@enronXgate, Claudio Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard
Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark
Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt
Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd Will/ENRON@enronXgate, Alan
Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate, Rogers Herndon/ENRON@enronXgate, James W
Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark
Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J Sturm/ENRON@enronXgate, Doug
Gilbert-Smith/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders/Enron@enronXgate, Andrew
Edison/ENRON@enronXgate, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Nancy
Turner/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, John
Brindle/ENRON@enronXgate, David Cromley/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: California Update 7/25/01 p.3
Details are still rough and the situation is very fluid, but here is what is
currently going on:
Senators Hertzberg and Keeley are amending both SB 78XX and AB 82XX. Upon an
initial read, it appears that they are doing the following:
? AB 82XX has been gutted except for the direct access provisions and the
renewables portfolio. (The core/non-core business provisions, the
transmission asset purchase, etc. all appear to have been deleted.) Both of
these provisions that have been left in the bill were seen as positive by
members last week when the bill was first debated.
? It appears amendments have been made to SB 78XX but the extent of these
changes are not yet known.
? At the beginning of both amended bills, it states, "As proposed to be
amended into SB_XX." This means that amendments to SB 78 could be
incorporated into AB 82, and vice versa. Another possibility is an entirely
new bill.
=====================================
|
4,325 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ - Calif PX Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3578.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/12/2001 10:56 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
03/12/2001 10:56 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: DJ - Calif PX Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Mon, 12 Mar
2001 10:42:54 -0600 -----
To: "Marcy Kurtz" <[email protected]>
cc: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox"
<[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ - Calif PX Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
DJ Calif PX Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
Copyright , 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--The California Power Exchange, the marketplace where
electricity is bought and sold in the state, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection Friday afternoon, citing multiple lawsuits filed against the
non-profit corporation by generators since the exchange announced it was
closing down in January, according to a filing made in U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Central District of California.
A CalPX official said a bankruptcy court could better sort out the
lawsuits and make sure generators owed hundreds of millions of dollars get
paid.
A bankruptcy court judge may decide the outcome of a lawsuit filed
against the CalPX and Gov. Gray Davis by Duke Energy (DUK), which alleged
that forward power contracts held by the CalPX and seized by the governor
were done so unlawfully.
The CalPX was set to liquidate forward power contracts totaling about $1
billion to pay power suppliers hundreds of millions of dollars owed by PG&E
Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International (EIX) unit
Southern California Edison. Both utilities defaulted on payments to the
CalPX.
Gov. Davis seized the contracts minutes before the CalPX was set to
liquidate them.
A spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis would not comment on the CalPX's
bankruptcy filing.
Duke has reached an interim agreement with the state to continue
supplying the power, but it has yet to agree on a price the company expects
the state to pay for the contracts.
Then in late February, the CalPX still having to pay suppliers for the
utilities defaults, attempted to bill companies such as Enron Corp. (ENE) and
Avista Corp. (AVA), for money the utilities failed to pay.
The "charge-back" would have occurred under a CalPX insurance mechanism,
which states that defaults by the exchange's participants are charged back to
creditors' based on creditors' level of participation in the exchange in the
three months prior to the default.
Enron and the other suppliers sued the CalPX in federal court in attempt
to block the CalPX from holding the companies' responsible for PG&E and SoCal
Ed defaults.
The case was postponed pending action by federal regulators.
The CalPX, which at one point controlled about 85% of the state's
wholesale power market transactions, was established under the state's 1996
landmark deregulation law. The exchange was set up to ensure that utilities
paid a transparent price for power during the transition to deregulation.
The exchange operated a uniform price auction, meaning all sellers were
paid the highest accepted bid for power regardless of what their actual bid
may have been. The state's three investor-owned utilities were required to
buy the bulk of their power through the CalPX.
In December, federal regulators announced that the CalPX's tariff, which
allows it to operate in the state as a Power Exchange, would not be renewed
because it was one of the flaws that contributed to the failure of
California's wholesale power market.
In January, the CalPX announced that it would suspend its day-ahead,
day-of and block forward market and that it would permanently shut down in
April and began laying off its staff of 200 employees.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 10-03-01
=====================================
|
4,326 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1028.
=====================================
Editorial/Opinion
Making it hot for deregulation
Gregory Palast
The New York Times
08/29/2000
The News & Observer Raleigh, NC
Final
A11
(Copyright 2000)
PECONIC, N.Y. -- While reporters ogled celebrities at Barbra Streisand's
bungalow during the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, something important
was being debated 100 miles to the south in San Diego, where there was a real
display of populism. There politicians have enrolled 2 million citizens in a
scary economic experiment. This year, San Diego became the first city in
California to experience the end of state regulation of electricity prices.
When California's lawmakers voted to bring the miracle of market competition
to electricity, they wrote into the law that homeowners' bills would fall "by
at least 20 percent." In fact, bills jumped 124 percent this August over
last. Rather than repudiate this mad market experiment, the federal
government and 24 other states have rushed to imitate California's lead.
Actually, Californians were lucky. Every hour of every day, San Diego Gas and
Electric, the local utility, must now buy its electricity at a state auction
known as a power pool. On the first hot day this summer, during the noonday
heat, the companies that produce the power, newly deregulated, cranked up
their bids to $9,999 per megawatt hour. That's about 5,000 percent more than
the once- controlled price of $20, but it could have been worse.
According to those inside the secretive auction agency, sellers assumed the
pool's computers could handle only four-digit bids. In fact, the computers
could have accepted bids for seven figures and bankrupted a chunk of the
state in a day.
One can trace California's electricity market plague largely to a single
source, Daniel Fessler. In the early 1990s, Fessler, then president of the
state's Public Utilities Commission, developed an infatuation with one of
Margaret Thatcher's free-market ventures: the troubled England-Wales Power
Pool.
How strange. Britons pay about 70 percent more for electricity than
Americans. That's hardly a surprise, as each day around tea time, when
England's usage peaks, a small clique of power plant owners take over the
electricity auction, bidding up prices by 200 percent to 2,000 percent.
In the United States, utilities vowed they would play no such tricks if
California removed the limits on profits that have been at the core of
regulation policy for the past 100 years. The promise lasted several months,
during which time five giant international electricity sellers - all new to
California - imported the techniques they'd learned in Britain that were
designed to manipulate the bidding process and in a single month produce
profits once permitted for an entire year.
The deregulation bug is now winging eastward. New York City, for example, has
reportedly succumbed to 43 percent increases in Con Edison bills.
But in San Diego, something extraordinary happened. This month, thousands
joined an unprecedented consumers' boycott. The power companies can send out
their bloated bills, but the tanned masses won't pay. Refuseniks include the
Council of Churches, the school district and - without a hint of shame -
Steve Peace, the state senator who sponsored the deregulation law.
* * *
The electricity fiasco should be a godsend for Al Gore's campaign. After all,
it was Fessler and his fellow Republicans who threw California's consumers to
the meager mercies of the marketplace. And Gov. George W. Bush pushed through
deregulation in Texas, which is widely expected produce hefty returns for a
former business partner, Sam Wyly, owner of the GreenMountain, a power
seller.
But while Gore spoke out in Los Angeles against "powerful forces," on this
subject he's mum. No wonder: the Clinton-Gore administration still promotes
California-style deregulation as a model for the nation.
But someone's ready to feel California's pain, and it's not good news for
Gore. During the Democrats' big show, Ralph Nader went to San Diego to remind
boycotters that he was founding father of the Utility Consumer Action
Network, the 46,000-member local group leading the anti-corporate uprising.
Electricity is the first big U.S. industry formerly under the tight control
of states to be opened up to international operators and their free market
rules. For the first time, Americans feel the bite of real globalization, and
we don't like it one bit.
=====================================
|
4,327 |
Subject: Internet Daily for October 24, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/772.
=====================================
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Email Alert
Internet Daily
for Wednesday, October 24, 2001
by Frank Barnako CBS MarketWatch.com
Streaming fee steams radio talkers
Two of the nation's highest-rated radio talk show hosts are not
happy about their program syndicator's decision to begin
charging for access to Webcasts of their programs.
Premiere Radio Networks, owned by Clear Channel Communications ,
is charging listeners $6.95 a month to hear the talkers' shows
online. Overnight host Art Bell posted a note on his Web site
(http://www.artbell.com/) saying, "It was NOT my decision to
change the free Internet access." Dr. Laura Schlessinger, also
reportedly unhappy, indicated on her site that she was "puzzled
that some want to blame her ... because of this corporate
cost-saving measure."
Sports host Jim Rome's show is being offered by the service,
StreamLink, as well. Premiere also syndicates Rush Limbaugh, who
has his own pay-per-listen strategy of charging $39.95 a year.
Kraig Kitchin, president of Premiere, said in a New York Post
report that it costs the company $1.5 million annually for
streaming services. "Time will show we have found a solution to
allow that listening connection to continue, versus no longer
(providing) the service," Kitchin told the newspaper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EarthLink to plug cable over DSL
EarthLink has adopted what some might call a Trojan horse
strategy. While striking a deal with AOL Time Warner to have
its Internet access service distributed on Time Warner-owned
cable systems, EarthLink will encourage new customers to get its
service through the competitor's cable service. Garry Betty,
chief executive of Atlanta-based EarthLink, told analysts that
profit margins are better with cable access service than they
are by providing access through DSL. He also said EarthLink
expects to offer broadband service to half the homes that
receive Time Warner Cable by the end of this year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Music streamer plans personal jukebox
RadioMOI.com will launch a personalized music jukebox service on
the Web next January. Subscribers will be charged a monthly fee,
yet to be determined, to be able to select tracks and listen to
them on demand, and to save them as customized "shows,"
according to the company's parent, Musicmusicmusic.com. On a
related note, the firm announced a licensing agreement with
Vivendi's Universal Music Group for non-exclusive streaming
rights to portions of the company's catalog, including
recordings on the Chess, Verve and Motown labels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MP3.com founder takes on Microsoft
Michael Robertson plans to release an operating system to
compete with Microsoft's Windows next year. Based on the
open-source Linux software code, the product, dubbed Lindows,
will run both Linux and "many popular Windows software titles,"
he said. Costing $100, the operating system is billed as
enabling users to run it on as many PCs as they want. "Once
installed, LindowsOS offers a full-powered graphical desktop
experience familiar to any computer user, but with advanced
underlying architecture to ensure greater reliability,"
Robertson said, noting that an initial version of the software
will be offered through the Web. Robertson previously founded
digital music site MP3.com, acquired several months ago by
Vivendi Universal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
=====================================
|
4,328 |
Subject: Re: JDS Uniphase Corporation Strongly Supports Retention of Direct
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '(bcc: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron)', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12532.
=====================================
FYI, JDS Uniphase Corporation was one of the 150 California companies that
received our direct access letter. Please see the attached letter that they
sent to the CPUC commissioners.
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 06/14/2001
01:15 PM ---------------------------
From: Janel Guerrero on 06/13/2001 10:59 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron)
Subject: Re: JDS Uniphase Corporation Strongly Supports Retention of Direct
Access and asks for CPUC Support
Thank you Mr. Pietrelli. Your letter is straightforward, honest, and such an
important part of the process. I'll foward your letter to Chairman Lay
immediately. Thank you again for your interest in the issue and for taking
time to contact the CPUC.
Janel Guerrero
Director, Government Affairs
[email protected]
06/13/2001 07:49 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: JDS Uniphase Corporation Strongly Supports Retention of Direct
Access and asks for CPUC Support
FYI, the attached e-mail was sent to all 5 CPUC commissioners.
---------------------- Forwarded by Ken Pietrelli/SaRo/US/JDSUniphase on
06/13/2001 05:49 PM ---------------------------
Ken Pietrelli
06/13/2001 05:34 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: JDS Uniphase Corporation Strongly Supports
Retention of Direct Access and asks for CPUC Support
Dear Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown:
My name is Kenneth D. Pietrelli, Vice President of Corporate Services for the
Thin Film Products Group(formerly OCLI and Flex Products) of JDS Uniphase in
Santa Rosa, California. I am asking for your support to retain Direct Access
as
an option for industrial energy customers such as JDS Uniphase. Electricity
and
natural gas are critical infrastructural requirements for our manufacturing
processes. Without access to reliable sources, at high quality and
competitive
prices we cannot satisfy our customers needs and be a viable business in
California. We fear loss of direct access will have a material, adverse
effect
on our business in California where we currently employ approximately 5,000
employees. JDS Uniphase is made up of such diverse groups as the original
Uniphase Commercial Lasers Group in San Jose and Manteca, the E-Tek Dynamics
Company in San Jose, SDLI in San Jose and Santa Clara and OCLI and Flex
Products
in Santa Rosa. The corporation has over 20,000 employees in over 20
countries.
Of all the sites in California only the Santa Rosa site has direct access,
which
is due to various historical and operational reasons. We own a 22Mw
substation
located on our 75 acre plant site and are considered a grid level customer.
Up
to now we have enjoyed high quality, reliable electrical energy. In the mid
1990's we began contracting directly for natural gas from other than PG& E and
are currently sourcing gas from Pan Canadian Energy via a single point gas
meter
for the site. In 1998 we entered into a 5 year direct access electricity
contract with PG& E Energy Services. In 2000 this contract was assigned by
PG&E
Energy Services to Enron and is valid through June 30, 2003. Because of the
importance of energy availability, quality and price to our manufacturing
operations we have made business decisions on where capital investments have
been made and where redundant operations would be consolidated. We are in the
process of a global re-alignment program that is consolidating numerous
activities to Santa Rosa, CA for a variety of reasons, to include our direct
access to energy.
If direct access is eliminated in California, JDS Uniphase management will
have
to re-assess and re-consider actions currently underway to consolidate
manufacturing from Rochester, NY; Ottawa, Canada; Dunfermline Fife, Scotland;
and San Jose, Ca to the Santa Rosa, CA site. Other locations on the East Coast
of the U.S., China, UK, etc. would have to be re-considered for these
consolidation activities. Selfishly, we are asking you to retain direct
access
to keep jobs in California. Philosophically, we believe the "right to choose"
is an American tradition and anyone concerned with the long-term health and
viability of the California economy would want to retain the direct access
option for California customers. Thanks for your time and support.
Kenneth D. Pietrelli
Vice President of Corporate Services, TFPG, JDSU
2789 Northpoint Parkway
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone 707 525-7520
Fax 707 525-7846
=====================================
|
4,329 |
Subject: RE: AReM/WPTF Updated Draft Filing Concerning the Proposed Decisi
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12363.
=====================================
Here is my view on the comments. The ARM comments cover most of the
territory we would want to cover, but they do not spend enough time
explaining that the Barnett conclusion about "credits only not cash" is the
result of a flawed interpretation of the original stipulation. The comments
also do not raise the points in Bob Williams' email from two days ago,
namely that the conclusion that only credits are available is counter to the
course of performance and practice by the parties, and that the decision is
procedurally flawed for providing relief beyond that requested in the Edison
petition, thereby denying the other parties due process. These elements
could be added to the comments.
Secondly, however, the comments tee up very clearly the fact that we have an
outstanding complaint on these issues and say that the decision could hurt
our chances for recovery. Bob had recommended that we down play these
issues to avoid enticing our enemies at the Commission. The ARM comments
explicitly indicate that this order will prejudge our complaint case, which
I do not believe we would want to admit in any event.
In conclusion: the ARM comments should not be used as the sole vehicle all
the above changes are made. If the changes are made, we can go with those
comments. Otherwise, I would suggest sticking with the comments we are
preparing, adding more information about our due process objections and
arguing strongly for a bifurcation of the issues. This would both support
ARM and allow us to make a more focused pitch to defer the cash or credit
issue.
Please call me at 415-279-0702 to let me know how you would like to proceed.
Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: AReM/WPTF Updated Draft Filing Concerning the Proposed
Decisions on Direct Access and the PX Credit
----- Forwarded by Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 04:04 PM -----
Susan J Mara
To: Robert C
Williams/Enron@EnronXGate
06/22/2001 cc: Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
10:02 AM 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: AReM/WPTF Updated
Draft Filing Concerning the Proposed
Decisions on Direct Access and the
PX Credit
Here is the updated draft of joint WPTF and AReM comments.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 07:58 AM -----
"Dan Douglass"
<douglass@eart To: "Tamara Johnson"
<[email protected]>, "Robert Berry"
hlink.net> <[email protected]>, "Denice Cazalet
Purdum" <[email protected]>, "Ed
Cazalet" <[email protected]>, "Bill
Ross" <[email protected]>, "Bob
06/21/2001 Anderson"
<[email protected]>, "Carolyn Baker"
07:17 PM <[email protected]>,
"Charles Miessner"
<[email protected]>,
"Corby Gardiner"
<[email protected]>,
"Curt Hatton" <[email protected]>,
"Curtis Kebler"
<[email protected]>, "Gary Ackerman"
<[email protected]>,
"George Vaughn"
<[email protected]>, "Greg
Blue" <[email protected]>, "Jack
Pigott" <[email protected]>,
"Janie Mollon"
<[email protected]>,
"Jeff Dasovich"
<[email protected]>, "Joe
Paul" <[email protected]>, "Nam Nguyen"
<[email protected]>, "Randy
Hickok" <[email protected]>,
"Rob Nichol"
<[email protected]>, "Roger Pelote"
<[email protected]>,
"Steve Huhman" <[email protected]>,
"Sue Mara"
<[email protected]>, "Vicki Sandler"
<[email protected]>, "ARM"
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Draft Filing
Concerning the Proposed Decisions on Direct
Access and the PX Credit
Attached for your review and comment is a proposed Joint Filing to be made
by the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and the Western Power Trading
Forum concerning the draft decisions of ALJ Barnett and Commissioner
Bilas.
Comments would be appreciated as soon as possible, as this filing must be
made on Monday.? Thanks!
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: Blank Bkgrd.gif)
(See attached file: 6-25-01 Joint Comments - Draft 1.doc)
=====================================
|
4,330 |
Subject: RE: Friday
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11209.
=====================================
That's the ticket on the recipe. I can give you some more ideas if you
like. Please let Prentice and me know what we can do to pitch in.
Best,
Jeff
"Rogers, Sarah" <[email protected]>
04/17/2001 03:53 PM
To: "'Cameron Sellers'" <[email protected]>, "Alison McCauley (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>, "Amy Hood (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Mari Nayvelt
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Friday
I plan to be booting everyone out of my house before/upon my return from the
airport, if you catch my drift, but perhaps we can place some people in Amy
Hood's upstairs abode to slave away? Or you can just come at 5:30 or 6?
I've told people to come at 7:30, I think, but I am pretty flexible on that.
Amy Hood will provide salad plates, and I think my regular dinner plates are
big enough to fit pasta and steak/potatoes/radish salad (which is really a
garnish anyway). Does that work?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Sellers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:57 PM
To: 'Rogers, Sarah'; Cameron Sellers; Alison McCauley (E-mail); Amy Hood
(E-mail); Mari Nayvelt (E-mail)
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Friday
I think it all sounds great. I can probably be at your house around 2pm or
so. It looks like you might be off to the airport, but we can coordinate
and hopefully someone else might be around. I can make the dressing on
Thursday night. I would also be happy to make anything on Thursday that I
can. I'll look at the recipes tonight and let you know what I can do ahead
of time.
The only thing missing that the birthday boy requested is truffle pasta (and
Jeff this is where you come in). This might be very easy and if it is I
will take care of it and serve it before the steaks. If I can do it then
you might even drop an appetizer (or we'll never get to the cake). Jeff,
can you help me with this pasta? Essentially he wants a light truffle pasta
like we had everywhere in Tuscany. We have those truffles in jars - any
idea what to do with them. We also have truffle oil. If all else fails, I
am prepared to cook some fettuccini, slice up one of a truffles, mix in some
olive oil and truffle oil and toss. What do you think??
What time are we tell the non-preparers to come??
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Sarah [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:26 PM
To: Cameron Sellers (E-mail); Alison McCauley (E-mail); Amy Hood
(E-mail); Mari Nayvelt (E-mail)
Subject: Friday
Chicks,
Friday approaches. Alison has graciously volunteered to deal with flowers,
and Amy H is going to make a cake. Here is my suggested menu:
Champagne/wine/cocktails (I have)
Savory biscotti to dip into medium-bodied red wine (from Martha Stewart)
Smoked salmon nori stacks (from Martha Stewart)
Moroccan salmon on bamboo skewers (from Martha Stewart)
Fancy-looking crudites presented nicely in glasses and whatnot with
buttermilk dip (from Martha Stewart)
Iceberg wedges with roquefort dressing (Cameron's mom's recipe)
Steak with wasabi mashed potatoes and daikon radish salad (April 2001 Bon
Appetit)
Cake (Amy)
Port/champagne/etc (I have some)
I am going to go to the grocery store on Thurs afternoon and could
potentially make the biscotti then. I have picked things that I think will
look impressive but not be impossible to get done (a) relatively quickly and
(b) ahead of time. I think the mashed potatoes can also be done ahead of
time.
I may have a conference call on Fri from 9-11, but I hope to put it on mute
while I chop things. I will have to do some work and also pick up Bob at
the airport at 2:30, but any help is welcomed (either in person or on your
own separately). Let me know what your plan is and what you'd be interested
in doing, as well as any questions or concerns you have about le menu.
This will be soooooooo fun!
SER
________________
Sarah Rogers
Solutions Marketing
Jamcracker, Inc.
19000 Homestead Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408-725-4301
f: 408-725-4310
www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.
More about the Jamcracker solution:
www.jamcracker.com/solution/s1.shtml
Jamcracker in the news:
www.jamcracker.com/news/n1.shtml
=====================================
|
4,331 |
Subject: Texas Grid Becomes Unified
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13356.
=====================================
Electrical Grid Becomes Unified as Texans Start to Get Choice of Providers
Source: Austin American-Statesman
Publication date: 2001-06-01
Arrival time: 2001-06-04
Jun. 1--After years of careful negotiation and planning, the pilot program
for Texas' competitive retail electricity market starts today -- more or
less.
The state agencies responsible for ensuring the reliability of the
electricity grid are phasing in customer changes more slowly than first
planned to make sure Texas isn't beset by errors that could cause the type of
power outages routine in parts of California.
"As the systems testing started, it became clear it would take a little
longer to get the systems in place," said Terry Hadley, a spokesman for the
state Public Utility Commission.
Though the pilot program involves at most 5 percent of the customers of
utilities that are entering the competitive market, it will be closely
watched as a test of whether the full program will work when it starts Jan.
1. The delay won't mean much in practice; -- customers who switch to a new
provider probably will get their first new bill in August rather than July.
The delay comes as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas Inc., which
manages the statewide grid, moves from a system of 10 regional power controls
to a unified system. ERCOT, as the agency is called, today is scheduled to
dedicate its new, 45,000-square-foot facility near Austin-Bergstrom
International Airport.
"We're making progress every day," ERCOT Chief Executive Tom Noel said in a
statement. "We want to be fast, but we insist on getting it right. These are
complex computer and communications systems, and we need to take some time to
test and debug them."
ERCOT is one of the three big power grids in the United States and the only
one contained to one state. Its 37,000 miles of transmission lines cover
about 85 percent of Texas. The Panhandle and South Plains areas in Northwest
Texas and parts of East and Southeast Texas are connected to the other grids.
ERCOT is akin to a railroad switching station, making sure that power can
move from plants to consumers through a network of transmission lines and
connection facilities.
The advantage of a self-contained grid works only if enough power is
generated and there are enough transmission lines to move it. Twenty-two
plants have opened since 1995. Deregulation advocates say the power-plant
building binge should ensure adequate power for Texas.
The new ERCOT system is expected to be able to handle about 21,000 customer
switches each day by July 6. Switching a customer to a new provider should
take about two weeks.
The deregulated market for electricity works like long-distance telephone
service. Customers of publicly held utilities such as Reliant Energy Inc. and
TXU Corp. can choose among providers serving their area, scouting for the
cheapest price. TXU serves about 55,000 customers in Williamson and
neighboring counties. The City of Austin is not required to open its market
to competition and has not announced any intention of doing so.
The pilot program has been very successful with large business and industrial
customers, but only 53,000 residential customers statewide have signed up.
Most of those were in Reliant's home base of Houston; the company is more
than halfway to the 5-percent mark. TXU has filled about 20 percent of the
slots available for residential customers, virtually all in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area, while other companies have only had a few people switch.
Marketing has been focused on major cities, Hadley said, and companies that
primarily serve more rural areas have not necessarily found it worthwhile to
get the word out at this point.
Several consumer-advocate groups filed a petition with the PUC last week,
claiming that even when the information gets out, it is often misleading,
confusing or incomplete.
Some customers in outlying areas say the effort it takes to get the
information makes switching hardly worth it.
Frank Mathewson of Round Rock said he requested a list of retail electric
providers for his area, which is served by TXU, from the state's deregulation
initiative, the PUC's Power to Choose program.
"They were supposed to have sent me information on everybody, and I have
never gotten any," he said. "After a while, I'll just give up."
-----
To see more of the Austin American-Statesman, or to subscribe to the
newspaper, go to http://www.austin360.com
=====================================
|
4,332 |
Subject: RE: Australian visit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11821.
=====================================
It's about 90% certain that I'm out of the office on the 3rd. Thank you,
Sue, for helping out.
Best,
Jeff
"Sabine Schnittger" <[email protected]>
06/29/2001 09:43 AM
Please respond to Sabine.Schnittger
To: <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Australian visit
Thanks for your time, Sue.
I hope I am not causing confusion - we also emailed Jeff Dasovich to
ask if he had time to talk with the Australians - he said he was going to
see what he could do.
If you or Mr Dasovich might have time to give these guys a market
participant's view that would be great - at the moment they are only seeing
the CPUC, the CAISO and PG&E.
Would you maybe have time to talk to them on Tuesday, July 3rd? They
could meet anytime between 1.00PM up to 4.00PM and then they need to head
off to the airport. Maybe they could take either of you out for lunch?
Best wishes,
Sabine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2001 6:43 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Australian visit
>
>
>
> Whoops. Forgot to back to you on this. Do you have a date?
>
> Sue Mara
> Enron Corp.
> Tel: (415) 782-7802
> Fax:(415) 782-7854
>
>
>
>
> "Sabine Schnittger"
>
> <Sabine.Schnittger@frontierecon To:
> "Sue Mara" <[email protected]>
> omics.com> cc:
>
>
> Subject: Australian visit
> 06/18/2001 09:01 AM
>
> Please respond to
>
> Sabine.Schnittger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Sue,
>
> Hope you are well; no doubt the ongoing saga in California is
> keeping you busy.
>
> I am writing to ask whether you might be available to meet (maybe
> for an hour/hour and a half max) with an Australian colleague of ours and
> three advisors to the Treasurer of the state of New South Wales (Sydney,
> Australia) to give them a market participant's perspective on about events
> in the California electricity market and the implications for
> deregulation/regulatory policy for electricity. Basically the four are
> advisors to the Minister of Energy and are being sent across to the US to
> get a feel for what went on and how to avoid similar disasters in the
> National Electricity Market (NEM) in Australia.
>
> By way of background I should say that New South Wales is a party to
> the NEM, and is in the process of deciding in which direction the reform
> process should be taken forward. The team would therefore be very
> interested
> in Enron's views on such issues as regulatory policy with respect
> to retail
> rates, market power, encouraging investment (including grid investment),
> but
> also any other issues that Enron considers to be important in the light of
> the California experience.
>
> The group consists of Bill Frewen (Senior Ministerial Advisor State
> Owned Corporations to the NSW Treasurer), Peter Shields (Senior Economist,
> Market Implementation Group, NSW Treasury), Mark Duffy (Economics/IR
> Consultant to the MIG, NSW Treasury) and Danny Price (Principal,
> Frontier-Economics, Consultant to the MIG, NSW Treasury). If you - or
> someone else that might have a view on California market reform - might
> have
> time to talk to them that would be very much appreciated.
> Many thanks,
>
> Sabine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> Sabine Schnittger
> Managing Consultant
> Frontier Economics
> Two Brattle Square
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> Office tel: (617) 354-0060
> Office fax: (617) 354-0640
> Mobile: (617) 480-5992
> Email: [email protected]
> http://www.frontier-economics.com
>
>
> (See attached file: winmail.dat)
>
> << File: winmail.dat >>
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
4,333 |
Subject: RE: UK Government secundee to Enron?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12295.
=====================================
Feel free to proceed. Thanks.
From: Jeff Dasovich on 06/26/2001 11:46 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate
cc: Mark Schroeder/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: RE: UK Government secundee to Enron?
I'm comfortable, so long as Rick and Paul are as well.
Best,
Jeff
Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate
06/26/2001 04:01 AM
To: Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Mark Schroeder/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: RE: UK Government secundee to Enron?
As Mark mentioned, I would recommend Edward Barker. He is closely involved
in NETA and has a good understanding of power and gas markets. I also
wouldn't be concerned about whether CA is relevant - it is a major issue here
and on the Continent as the EU states begin to look at security of supply and
how they can avoid "doing a California". Edward is sufficiently bright and
discerning to recognise any evidence he picks up in CA for what it is.
Based on the exchange of correspondence below, I will get back to Ian
Fletcher and ask for Edward's CV etc and indicate that we would be prepared
to consider a role in San Francisco (with some flexibility). Please confirm
that you are happy for me to progress this further with the DTI.
Thanks
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Schroeder, Mark
Sent: 25 June 2001 21:47
To: Dawson, Paul
Cc: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: FW: UK Government secundee to Enron?
Paul D. - fyi. You should also ask Ian for a copy of his CV. thanks mcs
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: 25 June 2001 15:09
To: Schroeder, Mark
Subject: RE: UK Government secundee to Enron?
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/25/2001
03:08 PM ---------------------------
From: Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/25/2001 02:59 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: RE: UK Government secundee to Enron?
I'd like to see his resume. I don't know that California work will be
particularly informative--given the uniqueness of that great state, but we no
doubt can find a use for his skills. I would want to see his CV. It would
be a nonstarter for me if he was unwilling to travel to SFO or Portland on
regular basis. However, the travel could be 3-4 days a week--i.e., he could
travel up on Monday and go home on Thursday. (Or some other such schedule).
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:29 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul
Cc: Dawson, Paul; Mark Schroeder/Enron@ENRON
Subject: UK Government secundee to Enron?
What do you think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/25/2001
01:25 PM ---------------------------
From: Mark Schroeder/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/25/2001 01:22 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate
Subject: UK Government secundee to Enron?
Rick - I just got a call from Ian Fletcher, head of the Utilities Regulation
unit at the UK Department of Trade and Industry. He reports to Anna Walker,
the Director General of Energy at the DTI. Ian also knows Paul, and I am
sure that he only called me because he now knew of my US location. Anyway,
here is what he asked: They have a highly regarded junior civil servant,
Edward Barker (Paul and I have both met him, and rate him high), who is
getting married, and wants to locate to Los Angeles for a year while his
fiance/wife completes a Ph.D. at some school there. The UK DTI will keep
paying him, so he is effectively free to us. They want a relevant job/work
experience for him. Ian does not know about his willingness to commute
during the week from San Francisco to LA (I told Ian we were receptive to
these kinds of things, if all else worked out), but will check. I think it
would be good for Enron (Paul D. may have views on this), not only for
endearing Enron to key relationships at DTI, but exposing a UK civil servant
to the transparency of our regulation, US-style, cannot hurt either, as that
is something Paul is on a long march to improve in the UK. I would think
challenging research, attendance at settlement conferences, some memo
writing, etc. would be sufficient (actually, that would be a bit below the
policy-formation role he now occupies), but do you have any thoughts? I can
get his CV when you need it. thanks mcs
=====================================
|
4,334 |
Subject: We should lobby for relaxation of emmission limits
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES', 'Steven J', '[email protected]', 'Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4380.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Yang/SFO/EES on 12/07/2000 08:35 AM
---------------------------
Scott Stoness
12/06/2000 06:29 PM
To: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: We should lobby for relaxation of emmission limits
Getting the government to declare stage 2 continuously (or temporarly
relaxing the emmission during periods of cold) for the remaining month could
significantly reduce the problems in CA.
We should see what press we can make over this. See bolded below: 11,000 MW
of generation off line due to unplanned outage and emmission limits.
Scott
Calif Price Cap Driving In-State Power To Oregon, Wash
By Mark Golden and Jason Leopold
12/06/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- California's wholesale electricity price cap is so
far below free-market prices in the Northwest that large
amounts of the state's electricity will be exported Wednesday to the
Northwest, raising the risk of blackouts in California.
On Tuesday, electricity in the Northwest for delivery Wednesday traded at
$370-$390 a megawatt-hour, well above the California
Independent System Operator's price cap of $250/MWh. California utilities,
which buy most of their power in the California Power
Exchange's day-ahead market, refuse to pay more there than the ISO's
$250/MWh limit. Nor do sellers bother to offer power at more
than $250 in the CalPX market.
Seeing an opportunity for arbitrage profits, Northwest utilities and
electricity trading companies appeared in CalPX's market Tuesday as
buyers, even though California utilities are usually the only buyers there,
a CalPX market source said. They bought power through the
exchange at $400/MWh at the California-Oregon border hub - $250/MWh for the
power and $150 per megawatt to import the power -
leaving the state with less electricity for Wednesday and leaving
California's independent power producers wondering who gets the
difference between the $250/MWh maximum price they get from the CalPX and
the $400/MWh CalPX charges buyers in the Northwest.
Transmission lines that carry power into and out of California were
congested Tuesday because of the imports and exports of power. Due
to the congestion, the charge to use the lines was $150/MWh, CalPX market
sources said.
California looks to be priced out of the market for the next couple of
months. Forward contracts for electricity in Washington state peaked
Tuesday at $750/MWh for deliveries in January, before falling to $650/MWh.
For the balance of December in Washington state, power
traded at $1,200/MWh.
Of course, California could get back into the market by abandoning its price
cap, which has been breaking down for the week due to
skyrocketing wholesale prices for natural gas.
Quietly, the ISO has been purchasing power at prices above its cap outside
of its computer-based market in deals struck orally with
out-of-state utilities. The resolution setting up the price cap allows for
such out-of-market purchases if needed in a supply emergency - but
only from out-of-state sources.
The ISO declared a Stage 2 electrical emergency Wednesday as reserves dipped
below 5%. It was the third consecutive Stage 2
emergency this week, which has seen the state teeter on the brink of rolling
blackouts due to less than adequate supply.
On Monday, the ISO said the state would face an 11,000 MW deficit every day
for the remainder of the year because several power plants are off line for
planned or unplanned maintenance, or because they have exhausted their
pollution credits.
In the CalPX's hourly market Tuesday, prices peaked above the cap for only
the second time in the CalPX's three years of operations,
CalPX spokesman Jesus Arredondo said.
Some traders said that California utilities are effectively conceding that
the ISO price cap, which the utilities and state politicians pushed
through the ISO governing board this summer, is no longer enforceable
because natural gas prices have pushed generating costs above
$250/MWh.
Cash prices for natural gas in California hit $40 per million British
thermal units Wednesday. At $22/MMBtu, once the costs for
maintenance and emitting nitrous oxide are added in, generating costs rise
to near $300/MWh.
-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,335 |
Subject: Gov. Davis to disclose details of long-term contracts
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12591.
=====================================
A story from the Associated Press on Gov. Davis' announcement that he will
reveal the details of 38 power contracts is included below.
?
Some information I received that is not in the story:
?
The sequence of events appears to be that the governor will announce
tomorrow how he will reveal the contract details.? This announcement may be
in conjunction with an?attempt in a San Diego court?to invalidate the
confidentiality agreements within the contracts.? The court hearing is part
of the lawsuit by newspapers and Republicans to make the contracts public.
?
Davis has reportedly speculated that the actual details will be released
near the end of the week.? Some information apparently will be removed from,
or blacked out in, documents that are issued.
?
One impetus could be that the details of some of the contracts have
apparently been leaked by various sources.? One reporter told me he
understood that FERC had given some congressional Republicans details on the
contracts.? The one name was given to me as a recipient of the details was
Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana.
?
Davis had also promised to make the contract details available within 6
months of when they were first signed, a deadline that would expire in
mid-July.
?
Governor plans to release details of long-term power contracts
Eds: INSERTS 3 grafs after 7th graf "While revealing" to UPDATE
with comment from Senate leader John Burton; Picks up 9th graf
pvs:The 1996; ADDS byline
With BC-CA-Power Woes-Glance
ahstafjc<QL>[BYWIRE] By Alexa Haussler? <QC><MC>ASSOCIATED PRESS<QC>
[/BYWIRE][TEXT]
??? SACRAMENTO - Gov. Gray Davis plans to release the
much-sought details this week of 38 long-term contracts between the
state and power generators, aides said Tuesday.
??? "We now believe that the balance tips in favor of disclosure
rather than continuing to withhold the contracts," said Davis
senior adviser Nancy McFadden.
??? Republican lawmakers and several news organizations, including
The Associated Press, filed lawsuits in March saying Davis' refusal
to release details of the state's electricity purchases violates
the California Public Records Act.
??? But the Davis administration has refused to release the
contracts, saying that revealing the details would put the state at
a competitive disadvantage in other contract talks.
??? The state has been purchasing power since January for customers
of three cash-strapped utilities. Much of that has been on the
expensive spot market, but increasingly, state officials have
locked in contracts for long-term deals.
??? Raymond Hart, Department of Water Resources deputy director,
sent letters to power generators Monday saying the department will
ask a judge Wednesday to throw out a confidentiality provision in
the contracts.
??? While revealing the details still might pose some problems in
negotiations, "those impacts are far more limited than they might
have been had the contracts been released even two weeks ago," the
letter states.
??? Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, said lawmakers need
to see the details of the contracts before they could approve the
governor's plan to rescue Southern California Edison, or any
alternate plan.
??? "Until we see those contracts, and know exactly what's in them,
we can't make a determination," Burton said. "There was an
argument that I think was valid that the governor made at beginning
of the contracts. ... We're totally beyond that now."
??? Burton said Tuesday he'll introduce three energy-related
measures in the Legislature - including one that would repeal a 10
percent rate hike scheduled to take effect next year.
??? The 1996 electricity deregulation law included an automatic 10
percent rate reduction until March 2002. Burton's bill would remove
that out from state law, but the Public Utilities Commission could
still raise rates if commissioners felt it was needed.
??? Burton is also authoring a bill to provide backup battery power
for traffic signals in some intersections to keep the lights on
during blackouts.
??? Burton's third measure is a resolution that voices support for
Davis to commandeer power plants under his emergency powers
authority.
??? "The governor talks about it," Burton said. "We're going to
show him that there is support in the Senate for seizing these
power plants from these generators who have been ripping us off."
??? AP-WS-06-12-01 1541EDT
?
?
=====================================
|
4,336 |
Subject: What Next?? Power delivery efficiency questioned: Output at
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29317.
=====================================
FYI. David Freeman and DWR....public power working for California.
********************************************************
Power delivery efficiency questioned: Output at low-cost generating plants
has been cut while costlier ones continue to operate.
By Carrie Peyton
Bee Staff Writer
(Published July 31, 2001)
California is sometimes deliberately cutting output from low-cost power
plants while running more expensive ones, utility and grid officials say.
The sporadic episodes haven't cost much yet, but they illustrate a
potentially troubling disconnect in the system that has quickly grown between
two agencies that help deliver electricity to a power-strapped state.
"We seem to be building this inefficiency into the system, and it doesn't
seem to be getting better," said Mike Florio, a consumer advocate who sits on
the governing board of the Independent System Operator.
The trouble is that the ISO, created in 1996 to manage the power grid in a
deregulated electric market, tries to run the grid by auctions that -- in
theory -- provide the cheapest electricity for the state's consumers.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Water Resources, which in January stepped
in to buy power on behalf of cash-strapped utilities, isn't bidding at some
auctions because it believes it can provide cheaper power if it doesn't.
"We have an inefficient market and an inept government entity. It's sort of
the worst of both worlds," Florio said, criticizing his agency and the DWR.
ISO staffers decline to discuss the situation in detail, saying it involves
confidential bidding behavior.
But Pete Garris, chief of operations for the power-buying arm of the
Department of Water Resources, confirmed that the ISO has been asking his
agency to take part in more auctions, but the state has declined.
The state's role is to buy electricity for customers of utilities whose
credit was no longer good enough to buy on their own, he said.
"We're not in it to do those kinds of marketing functions," he said. "It's
not necessarily a good fit."
Some of the ISO auctions are used to lessen congestion on transmission lines.
Others are used to stabilize the grid by slightly increasing or decreasing
output when demand doesn't match forecasts.
Generally, the highest-cost power plants should be the ones cutting back, a
process the industry calls "decking."
But since May, on ISO orders, Southern California Edison has repeatedly
throttled back on the Mohave Generating Station, which produces some of the
cheapest power available to California today, costing as little as $10 to $20
a megawatt-hour.
Edison, which owns a majority share of Mohave, has cut its output by 5,660
megawatt-hours between May and July, about one-half of 1 percent, at the
ISO's behest, according to data Edison provided to The Bee.
The ISO could probably have saved the state's consumers $370,000 at one plant
if it had asked a higher-cost gas-burning plant to cut back instead of
Mohave, a coal-burning workhorse in Laughlin, Nev., Florio said.
The amount sounds like "small potatoes," but in some ways it is more alarming
than the $14 million the state lost recently by selling excess power for less
than it paid, he said.
Industry experts agree that such below-cost sales are common in a business
where power needs fluctuate dramatically based on the weather.
By contrast, "this is a dead weight loss. Higher costs are being incurred for
no good reason," Florio said.
"The question is, why is the ISO calling on Mohave and not (cheaper) gas
plants? The answer is, the gas plants aren't bidding ... probably because
they're contracted with DWR," he said.
Four Corners, another low-cost coal plant partly owned by Edison, has also
been throttled back at ISO request, Edison officials said.
In addition, so few bidders have shown up at ISO auctions to ease stress on
transmission lines that the system has fallen into disarray, with the ISO
instead ordering across-the-board power production cuts that are boosting
costs, Florio said.
For its part, the ISO will say only that "we are making the most economical
decisions we can based on the bids available," said spokeswoman Stephanie
McCorkle.
DWR's Garris said the state and the ISO have been meeting repeatedly on
bidding and other coordination issues, and he hopes to have a
smoother-running system in place by next summer.
The Bee's Carrie Peyton can be reached at (916) 321-1086 or
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
=====================================
|
4,337 |
Subject: RE: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing Suspension
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/252.
=====================================
That makes at least two of us! Hope you're doing well. We intend to continue to fight vigorously to re-instate direct access in California. Hope we'll be able to work together to get choice back.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Redding, John R. (PS, NE) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:34 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing Suspension of DA
Jeff,
I love their attitude and their words!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:44 PM
To: 'Jack M. Stewart' ; Redding, John R. (PS, NE); 'Evelyn Kahl' ; 'Keith McCrea' ; 'Mike Kahl' ; 'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)' ; 'Bill Booth' ; 'Dorothy Rothrock' ; 'Ann Cohn' ; 'Jan Smutny-Jones' ; 'John Fielder (E-mail)' ; 'Barbara Barkovich' ; 'Dominic DiMare' ; 'Phil Isenberg' ; 'Karen Terranova' ; 'Marc D. Joseph' ; 'Art Carter' ; 'Bill Dombrowski' ; 'Derek Naten' ; 'John White' ; 'Mike Florio (E-mail)' ; 'Robert Albergotti (E-mail)' ; 'Diana Liebman (E-mail)' ; Linda Sherif (E-mail) ; Delaney Hunter (E-mail)
Subject: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing Suspension of DA
Commissioners Henry M. Duque and Richard A. Bilas, dissenting:
One could say that this order is consistent with the Administration's present third world country mentality. We are punishing the very consumers and providers who made a commitment to ensuring electric restructuring did work by adding a demand retail component to cure the dysfunctions in the wholesale market.
We are not convinced that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) bond ratings depend on killing direct access. This notion is a scare tactic and a smoke screen. Direct access comprises such a small percentage of overall demand that it cannot reasonably be seen to be a threat to the sale of the bonds. Direct Access should be seen as a benefit to DWR. It would decrease the amount of the utilities net short obligations and relieve DWR from its power purchasing responsibilities sooner.
Something else is going on here. We think that the DWR does not want direct access because if the public is presented with alternatives, it will make DWR's purchasing mistakes abundantly clear. The Commission should be holding hearings to test the assertions being made by DWR, Finance and the Treasurer. Instead, the Commission is making an ill informed, panicked decision to act now and study the repercussions later.
DWR and the bonds should not be threatened by direct access if DWR is making prudent energy purchases. Only if DWR's contracts are too expensive, relative to market, will customers seek shelter in lower direct access prices. Indeed, retaining direct access as a way to send price signals to consumers may be the only way to place pressure on DWR to make more prudent purchases. This is a very important consideration since AB 1X prevents us from engaging in any prudency review of the DWR costs to be passed through to ratepayers in order to repay the bonds. If there is no yardstick, how can anyone measure DWR performance? The answer is, one can't, unless SB 18xx is signed into law.
We think that additional review of these issues, before suspending direct access, would have produced a more sound decision in the long run.
For these reasons we must respectfully dissent.
/s/ HENRY M. DUQUE /s/ RICHARD A. BILAS
Henry M. Duque Richard A. Bilas
Commissioner Commissioner
September 20, 2001
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,338 |
Subject: California Concern Still Surges Over State's Energy Power: CalISO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2178.
=====================================
Business; Financial Desk
California Concern Still Surges Over State's Energy Power: CalISO gets
authority to contract for new plants; PG&E seeks $2 billion in
'undercollections.'
NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
10/05/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page C-2
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company
California's top electricity traffic cop on Wednesday took on new
responsibilities for providing the state with more emergency power as it
again warned that the state probably won't have enough electrons to keep
everyone's lights on next summer without significant new sources of
electricity.
Separately, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. filed an emergency petition asking the
California Public Utilities Commission to pass on to consumers at least $2
billion in extraordinary electricity costs the utility has paid this summer.
The action, which was expected, follows a summer in which the PG&E Corp. unit
and the state's two other investor-owned utilities racked up at least $5
billion in "undercollections"--the difference between the record wholesale
electricity prices they paid and the retail rates they are allowed to charge
customers.
At the heart of both developments Wednesday is a lag in new generation needed
to keep up with the state's growing demand for electricity.
California narrowly dodged statewide rolling blackouts this year but might
not be as fortunate next year, when demand for electricity will exceed supply
by more than 5,000 megawatts on the hottest summer days, Terry Winter,
president and chief executive of the California Independent System Operator,
said at a contentious meeting of the agency's board of governors.
The board of the Folsom-based nonprofit, which controls about 75% of the
state's electricity grid, voted to give the ISO staff authority to contract
with generators to build new power plants to serve peak demand.
The new generation program puts the ISO in a curious role reminiscent of a
pre-deregulation utility, with some control over both transmission and
generation.
The ISO is charged with making sure there is enough electricity available to
meet demand--a task that left the agency scrambling again and again this
summer to round up enough power. In August, the state endured a power
emergency every 18 hours on average. (Customers of the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power do not face shortages.)
"We never anticipated the ISO would take on the responsibility of stimulating
development of generation resources this directly," Winter said. "However, if
we do not assume this role, we will be increasingly challenged in our efforts
to protect consumers from suffering rotating blackouts next summer."
The ISO solicited proposals for power plant projects that could be operating
by June, and received bids representing about 2,000 megawatts of generation,
or enough to serve about 2 million homes. The electricity would be sold into
the California Power Exchange or through separate contracts, but the ISO
would have the right to call on those plants to provide emergency power to
the grid for up to 500 hours each summer when supplies are tight. The ISO
would pay generators as much as $255 million a year for that right.
Board members expressed reservations about the cost of the power from the
peak-generation units.
"These are very important issues to the state of California. We need to know
before decisions are made what these costs are," said Gary Heath, executive
director of the California Electricity Oversight Board, which oversees the
ISO.
PG&E's petition states that since June, the San Francisco-based utility has
paid an average of $1 million every hour, 24 hours a day, that it has not
been allowed to recoup from customers under a 1996 rate freeze imposed by the
Legislature.
The petition, which might be considered as early as Oct. 19, asks the PUC to
reconsider a 1999 decision that forbids the utilities to pass on costs to
customers after the rate freeze ends, in either March 2002 or whenever the
utilities have paid off billions of dollars in "stranded" costs resulting
from now-uneconomical investments in nuclear power plants and alternative
energy contracts.
Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International in Rosemead, will
soon file a similar petition with the PUC, said Bob Foster, a senior vice
president. As of the end of August, Edison's undercollections had reached
$1.9 billion.
*
Times staff writer Nancy Vogel in Sacramento contributed to this report.
=====================================
|
4,339 |
Subject: RE: Time Warner
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11826.
=====================================
Since the case asked us to evaluate this from Munro's point of view, it is
his
job to examine the potential the deals in the best interest of Time's
shareholders. Therefore, in my opinion we will have to incorporate the
after-tax value to the Time shareholder as one piece of the puzzle. The
difficulty with the tax implications to the shareholder is that we do not
know
the average shareholder's cost basis. It should just be a mention in our
memo.
As I mention in a previous e-mail, there is no tax implication to the
corporation except for the leverage and tax shield. Unless we completely
recreate the DCF I don't think we can accurately quantify the tax shield
advantage especially since we don't know how the additional leverage will
alter
the WACC, i.e. what is the optimal WACC of the combined company. Another
complication is the difficulty in recreating the DCF is the timing and tax
implications of the asset sales which we know to be around $3.5 billion.
Our professor doesn't seem to require any advanced calculations. We are
probably all right with some approximations.
**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: Time Warner
Author: "Dylan Windham" <SMTP:[email protected]>
Date: 04/29/2001 12:29 AM
Jeff:
I have been looking at your numbers and I have a few questions.
1). If we look at this from the stand point of the Time shareholder's,
we do not really need to worry about the make-up of Time-Paramount after
the merger. Since this is an all cash deal, the purchase price will be
given to Time's shareholders. This amount needs to be above the DCF of the
Time-Warner deal for us to suggest it.
2). As for the taxes maybe Mark can shed some light on the
issue. During the acquisition phase the only taxes that will be paid will
be the capital gains paid by Time Shareholders. Paramount will not pay
taxes on the purchase. Paramount's tax position will improve due to the
increased debt payments. Looking at it from Time shareholder's we really
don't care do we? Maybe I am wrong.
Otherwise everything looked good. I like the common sized balance
sheet. I should be home all day tomorrow. Call me at 925-362-0210 and let
me know how I can pitch in.
Dylan
At 08:55 PM 4/28/01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>OK Gang:
>
>Well, I've been crunching numbers all day, and haven't yet gotten to the
>writing. I've attached Dylan's original responses for reference. Figure
>it'll be a memo from Time's CEO to the Time Board.
>
>I've leaving now for Mendocino, but will be back early tomorrow to finish
>this up. Please check out the spreadsheet.
>
>The case is sort of confusing?how do Time's analysts value Time at
>$189-212, when they're trading at 109 the day before the announcement of
>the deal with Warner. That doesn't jive. Are they saying that, absent
>synergies, the combined Time/Warner is worth the enterprise value of Time
>at 189-212 plus the enterprise value of Warner at $63-71 (again, the
>analysts valuation)? That just seems ridiculous, give where they're
>trading.
>
>Anyway, here's where my analysis is heading----tell me if I'm smoking
>crack.
>
>The deal isn't really $175 per share. It's $175 LESS the taxes that will
>have to paid (since it's a purchase deal) PLUS the value of the tax shield
>created by the net increase of $8.9B in new debt that Paramount will take
>on. Does this seem right? Could folks look at my spreadsheet? I've got
>it conceptually set up, but I'm not quite sure how to calculate the taxes
>paid under the purchase method or the value of the tax shield (assuming
>that this is correct. If I'm just completely out of it with this angle,
>just let me know. In any case, seems that there's some value in the
>tax-free (Time-Warner) versus the taxable (Time-Paramount) deals.
>Presumably, we could take the total enterprise value of Time-Warner
>(nontaxed) and compared it to the total enterprise of Paramount-Time
>(taxed) and compare the two. I've got a hunch that the Time-Warner number
>may win the day, but I haven't gotten that far in the crunching yet.
>
>In any case, I'll be back around Noon tomorrow and will crank the puppy
>out.
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>(See attached file: Timewar_Jeff Calculations.xls)(See attached file:
>TimeWarner.doc)
=====================================
|
4,340 |
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: DIRECT ACCESS AMENDMENT], the underlying e-mail
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12444.
=====================================
John Shelk is going to investigate the status of this amendment in the
context of the Barton bill. However, we want to raise with you our initial
strong reaction to this amendment. We are highly troubled that this
amendment is being pursued at the Federal level. We believe that we run the
risk of hurting our push for negawatts, let alone getting a very negative
vote on direct access itself. We will do some quiet soundings. But at this
point, we believe there is enormous downside risk to this strategy. We are
calling NYMEX to find out what they are thinking.
Susan J Mara
05/14/2001 01:35 PM
To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: [Fwd: FW: DIRECT ACCESS AMENDMENT], the underlying e-mail
Whoops! Here are the underlying e-mails
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 05/14/2001 10:31 AM -----
Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
05/14/2001 09:26 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin
<[email protected]>, Susan J Mara <[email protected]>, Mike Day
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: [Fwd: FW: DIRECT ACCESS AMENDMENT]
What do we think?
----- Message from "Mark Seetin" <[email protected]> on Fri, 11 May 2001
16:35:15 -0400 -----
To: "Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: DIRECT ACCESS AMENDMENT
Scott,
Chairman Barton has told us he would support a direct access amendment when
the full committee marks up the bill next week. Radanovich and Chris Cox
have expressed strong interes in sponsoring it. We are suggesting language
which bypasses the CPUC -- with federal preemption of course. Coan the
California DA folks press the congressional delegation focusing on
Radanovicha nd Cox?? What are your thoughts?
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie DeWitt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Mark Seetin
Subject: DIRECT ACCESS AMENDMENT
Dear Tricia and Royce, thanks for hearing us out on the issue of direct
access. Congressman Radanovich is welcome to offer an amendment on this
issue next week. The following language is based on some language we tried
to have inserted at the State level. Unfortunately, AB1X passed in January
prohibits direct access and competition among sellers for buyers of
electricity. Without a free market for electricity and with all electricity
purchases going through a state-mandated exchange, the taxpayers of
California are left with paying the bill or electricity:
DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR DIRECT ACCESS IMPLEMENTATION
Not later than thirty days after enactment, the Independent System Operator
("ISO"), shall submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") a
transmission congestion relief program that incorporates physical rights to
firm transmission through congestable interfaces. Such rights will confer on
users the right to access transmission through the interfaces without
incurring congestion fees. The rights will provide access for periods judged
to serve direct access market participants of up to one year. Initial
provision of these rights will be through an annual auction overseen by the
ISO. The rights will be resalable.
Not later than thirty days after enactment, the program will implement
direct access for large non-residential users of electric power. The program
will require large industrial, commercial and other non-residential users of
electricity to fulfill their electric power needs by contracting with
non-investor owned utilitiy ("IOU") sources in accordance with the following
schedule:
90 days after enactment: 1 megawatt and greater loads
180 days after enactment: 300 kilowatt and greater loads
270 days after enactment: 100 kilowatt and greater loads
360 days after enactment: 70 kilowatt and greater loads.
This program will permit large industrial, commercial, and other
non-residential users of electricity to voluntarily enter into contracts to
fulfill any portion of their own electric power needs through direct
contracting with non-IOU sources.
Charlie DeWitt
Associate, Government Affairs
New York Mercantile Exchange
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 550-S
Washington, DC 20004
ph. (202) 662-8771
fax (202) 662-8765
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,341 |
Subject: RE: PR Update for Direct Access Coalition
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10934.
=====================================
fyi, I asked Edelman to send me the direct access pitch they are using with
the media this week, and here it is....
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 04/10/2001
08:56 PM ---------------------------
"Manuel, Erica" <[email protected]> on 04/10/2001 11:38:44 AM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: PR Update for Direct Access Coalition
Sure thing. Here's the pitch:
Looking for a new twist on the California energy story?? A conflict that's
not being covered?
Tension is at fever pitch between the state's business community and policy
makers/Davis Administration over the issue of direct access. Simply put,
many forces are trying to kill direct access, which allows businesses and
residential users to buy their energy from alternative energy providers
instead of their local utility.? Yet for businesses this summer, the option
to bypass their local utility if they can ink a better energy deal somewhere
else may provide the thin margin that keeps them in business.? And PG&E's
recent bankruptcy filing begs the question: why not let someone else provide
power?
As California business screams for relief, the Department of Water
Resources, legislature, utilities, some consumer groups and the PUC continue
to erect barriers against direct access-which has been in a state of
suspended animation since the passage of AB1x.? Each player has its own
reasons to push for the demise of direct access.??
A large coalition of business interests is fuming (see direct access
coalition list below).? Already rocked by record power prices and worried
about recession, they fear that if direct access is not resuscitated soon
through emergency legislation, it will be one more reason to raise prices,
lay off workers, or shut their doors.? And they wonder: why are our state's
policymakers killing direct access at the time businesses need it most as
they confront escalating power bills?? It is widely assumed that the
Department of Water Resources has not contracted for enough power this
summer to avoid paying high prices in the spot market.? Yet, the more power
DWR doesn't need to buy because large users have done it for themselves, the
less financial exposure the state incurs.?
Last week, for the first time, Governor Davis suggested that he may be
supportive of letting businesses shop for their own power, but it is unclear
at this time how solid his support may be.? Meanwhile, the Legislature
continues to run in circles and do everything it can to avoid meaningful
action on this issue.? Direct access was one issue at the center of the
fissure between Assembly Republicans when they replaced their leadership two
weeks ago.? Senator Bowen's much-awaited "clean-up" bill, SB 27x, has been
more than a disappointment-in fact it's perceived as ensuring there will be
no customer choice.
But don't take my word. Edelman can arrange interviews with the California
Chamber of Commerce, California Retailers Association, California
Manufacturers & Technology Association, Calpine and other organizations
fighting to preserve direct access as well as individual
businesses/organizations who have chosen to bypass their local utilities and
cut their own power deals in order to reap huge savings and/or gain
certainty about their energy budgets.? These companies include high tech,
hotel and grocery chains, school districts, and large retailers.?
This is a timely, controversial story that needs to be told-and it hasn't
truly been covered so far by the mainstream media.? Please contact Erica
Manuel or Stevan Allen at Edelman Public Relations Worldwide at (916)
442-2331 to arrange interviews or receive more information.
?Building Owners & Managers Association Of California
California Chamber Of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Health Care Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Large Energy Consumers Association
California Retailers Association
California State University
California Healthcare Association
AES NewEnergy
Association Of Bay Area Governments Power
OCLI - A JDS Uniphase Company
Ralphs Grocery Company
Kaiser Permanente
Enron Corporation
Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
Green Mountain Energy Company
Independent Energy Producers
The Alliance For Retail Energy Markets (AreM)
The New Power Company
University Of California
School Project For Utility Rate Reduction
California Utility Buyers JPA
=====================================
|
4,342 |
Subject: ASAP please -- EBS on site power deals
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28060.
=====================================
Can you all help with the California issues?
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 06/22/2001
12:55 PM ---------------------------
From: Christi L Nicolay 06/19/2001 03:33 PM
To: Robert Eickenroht/Enron@EnronXGate, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Janine
Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David
Portz/Enron@EnronXGate, Robbi Rossi/Enron@EnronXGate, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Andrea Woodland/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: ASAP please -- EBS on site power deals
EBS owns on-site back up generators at various POP locations (in the EBS
buildings) across the US (see the list below. The generators max at appr.
1.5 MWs each. Per the generator permits, the generators only run during
emergencies when there is no power coming off the grid. EBS only uses about
20% of the generator output.
EBS has been approached by several tenants within the EBS buildings about
"sharing" by purchasing power from the on-site generators during emergencies
only. The appr. value to EBS is $2MM this summer.
Robert--Are there any PUHCA issues to Enron if EBS sells power to other
tenants in the same building? Is EBS required to obtain an EWG certificate
before doing this?
Retail folks--Since the power would not flow to the grid, this seems like it
may entail a "retail type" sale of on-site generation, rather than a
wholesale sale for which a power marketer license is required. Do you know
of any specific restrictions for the states listed? (FYI -- One of the
locations is in San Jose and the power has been curtailed severel times at
the location. It certainly seems like Cal. would be encouraging the use of
back up generators, but I do not know the specific rules.)
Finally, since EBS wants to act quickly, we discussed EBS hiring perhaps Sam
Behrens to work through this issue in the event we are unclear about any of
the regulations or rules. Thanks for letting me know your comments right
away.
-----Original Message-----
From: Woodland, Andrea
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 4:35 PM
To: Rossi, Robbi
Subject: Re: Power
Here's the scope of this project. I do not have David's email, so could you
send this onto him?
The plan is to sell Emergency Power at our POP's. There are 11 POP's where
we have generators installed in the building, and we are only utilizing
approximately 20% of the capacity. The plan is to sell the other 80% to
other building tenants. The power would only be provided in emergency
situations - which means when the normal power grid is down (current building
permits allow this). There would be an up front cost to providing the power
(breaker/conduit/conductor) which we would pass onto the customer as an
ititial Non-recurring Fee. They would pay a monthly fee to have the
emergency power available (demand charge), then pay a fee for the kwh used
(capacity charge). The customers that will be interested in this are either
tapped out on their generator or do not currently have a generator. So, to
pay a initial connection fee, which will be much less than the cost to
install a generator, and then a monthly fee for the power insurance, should
be acceptable.
This file shows the cities & the generator sizes, with about 80% available.
The companies on the right are who I've currently sent letters to. So far
we've received 3 phone calls - 1 who wants to buy all the power he can in San
Jose. From these discussions, the requests have ranged from 100A or 83kW to
1000 A or 830kW.
We need a term sheet or contract, and I would also be interested in speaking
with EPMI about a contract with them. Sounds like that might be a bit less
risky.
Thanks for you help.
Andrea Woodland
Enron Broadband Services
503-886-0532 (desk)
503-880-4547 (cell)
Robbi Rossi/ENRON@enronXgate 06/15/01 12:47 PM To: Andrea Woodland/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications cc: Subject: Power
Andrea,
David called me back and said he wanted to talk to Kristy Nickolay - his
regulatory person before we spoke. It may be helpful if you could send him a
brief description of the intended transaction. The power people are very
busy right now - and the easier we can make it for them to help us - the
better. He needs to know something about the size of the transactions and
the potential customers.
=====================================
|
4,343 |
Subject: RE: Timing for QF meeting with Edison
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/110.
=====================================
Jeff,
All good points and I totally agree with the first. We should try to corral Dave in the next couple of days to try and set an agenda. I am on Dave's schedule for 10:30 on Friday and am trying to confirm Michael's availability. If it ultimately comes together and you are available it would be helpful to have you on line.
As for the QFs, I would really like to get in front of them but am waiting on the Edison feedback before proceeding.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:04 PM
To: Etringer, Michael
Cc: Parquet, David; Calger, Christopher F.; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: RE: Timing for QF meeting with Edison
Mike:
A few thoughts:
Conference calls on issues of this size don't generally seem very constructive, and I'd suggest that we push for a face-to-face with Edison.
If the Legislature doesn't get the MOU out well in advance of September 14th, Edison won't be focused, and I'd suggest that we try and reschedule.
No matter the forum, the proposal will be tough to get through, even though it makes alot of economic sense. It's a big change, and big changes don't come easy, no matter the benefits. That said, no shots, no ducks. We ought to make a push.
The proposal may not be contingent on Legislation. It might be possible to make it happen at the California PUC.
Assignment to DWR would be significant and might require legislation (need to ask a QF lawyer).
The proposal makes sense for both the IOUs and DWR, since both want as much "headroom" as possible in rates to cover their respective revenue requirements.
Given the pending rate agreement between the CA PUC and DWR, and the utilities' messed-up financial position, DWR is clearly the preferable counter party from credit perspective.
All that said, none of the above matters much unless the utility, a critical mass of QFs and the PUC's consumer advocate ("ORA") buy into the idea.
I'd propose that we continue with Edison. If Edison bites, then go jointly with Edison to persuade the QFs. If the QFs bite, then go jointly with Edison and QF to try to persuade ORA.
On the issue of sleeving through the IOU or DWR, it seems useful to remain flexible on that, though absent general support from the IOUs, QFs and ORA, the entity will be academic.
Some preliminary thoughts. Happy to discuss further.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Etringer, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:44 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Parquet, David; Calger, Christopher F.; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: Timing for QF meeting with Edison
Jeff - I believe we currently on scheduled for a September 13th conference call with John Fielder to discuss QF proposals. One of the concerns I have is that the timing is such that it is unlikely, given the legislative session end of September 15th(??), that we are going to get much traction. (Aside from the fact that it seems difficult to convey the nuances of this deal over a conference call). It may not be relevant in this environment, but this idea makes sense. It is an issue of who will listen and who will act. It seems to make sense to propose the structure to DWR. Given the dilemma of how to marry both the Utilities' revenue requirement with that of DWRs on a go forward basis, anything that proposes to lower a portion of either of these revenue demands should be addressed.
The proposal to DWR could go as follows: Either Edison and PG&E could separately participate in the dual auction process to buy out the QF agreement and replace with market energy or the contracts could be assigned to DWR and DWR could conduct the dual auction. Assignment of the contracts to DWR would be contingent on a successful auction process. A buyout of the high priced QF agreements would provide for added head room under the rate caps and thus provide a basis for the higher cost DWR contracts.
In addition, it appears for our analysis, the savings would be such that you could roll in the outstanding debt owed to the QFs and not exceed the existing payment to the QF under the current capacity plus SRAC pricing. As such it seems that it could be construed as a restructuring of contracts and not a BAIL OUT of SCE. (I say this because my understanding of SB 78 is that a portion of the debt is to pay the back payments owed QFs. Is this portion of the bill being viewed by the radical contingent as a bail out?)
Let me know your thoughts.
Michael Etringer
West Power Origination
Phone: 503-464-3836
Cellular: 503-701-4516
=====================================
|
4,344 |
Subject: RE: Friday
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11211.
=====================================
Everyone is welcome at my humble abode to chop/dice/cut whatever they please
whenever they please - I will not be there, but will leave a key if you guys
are interested in using the space - just let me know and it is all yours as
sadly I apparently am expected to work that day.
Amy Hood
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Sarah [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:54 PM
To: 'Cameron Sellers'; Alison McCauley (E-mail); Amy Hood (E-mail); Mari
Nayvelt (E-mail)
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Friday
I plan to be booting everyone out of my house before/upon my return from the
airport, if you catch my drift, but perhaps we can place some people in Amy
Hood's upstairs abode to slave away? Or you can just come at 5:30 or 6?
I've told people to come at 7:30, I think, but I am pretty flexible on that.
Amy Hood will provide salad plates, and I think my regular dinner plates are
big enough to fit pasta and steak/potatoes/radish salad (which is really a
garnish anyway). Does that work?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Sellers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:57 PM
To: 'Rogers, Sarah'; Cameron Sellers; Alison McCauley (E-mail); Amy Hood
(E-mail); Mari Nayvelt (E-mail)
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Friday
I think it all sounds great. I can probably be at your house around 2pm or
so. It looks like you might be off to the airport, but we can coordinate
and hopefully someone else might be around. I can make the dressing on
Thursday night. I would also be happy to make anything on Thursday that I
can. I'll look at the recipes tonight and let you know what I can do ahead
of time.
The only thing missing that the birthday boy requested is truffle pasta (and
Jeff this is where you come in). This might be very easy and if it is I
will take care of it and serve it before the steaks. If I can do it then
you might even drop an appetizer (or we'll never get to the cake). Jeff,
can you help me with this pasta? Essentially he wants a light truffle pasta
like we had everywhere in Tuscany. We have those truffles in jars - any
idea what to do with them. We also have truffle oil. If all else fails, I
am prepared to cook some fettuccini, slice up one of a truffles, mix in some
olive oil and truffle oil and toss. What do you think??
What time are we tell the non-preparers to come??
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Sarah [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:26 PM
To: Cameron Sellers (E-mail); Alison McCauley (E-mail); Amy Hood
(E-mail); Mari Nayvelt (E-mail)
Subject: Friday
Chicks,
Friday approaches. Alison has graciously volunteered to deal with flowers,
and Amy H is going to make a cake. Here is my suggested menu:
Champagne/wine/cocktails (I have)
Savory biscotti to dip into medium-bodied red wine (from Martha Stewart)
Smoked salmon nori stacks (from Martha Stewart)
Moroccan salmon on bamboo skewers (from Martha Stewart)
Fancy-looking crudites presented nicely in glasses and whatnot with
buttermilk dip (from Martha Stewart)
Iceberg wedges with roquefort dressing (Cameron's mom's recipe)
Steak with wasabi mashed potatoes and daikon radish salad (April 2001 Bon
Appetit)
Cake (Amy)
Port/champagne/etc (I have some)
I am going to go to the grocery store on Thurs afternoon and could
potentially make the biscotti then. I have picked things that I think will
look impressive but not be impossible to get done (a) relatively quickly and
(b) ahead of time. I think the mashed potatoes can also be done ahead of
time.
I may have a conference call on Fri from 9-11, but I hope to put it on mute
while I chop things. I will have to do some work and also pick up Bob at
the airport at 2:30, but any help is welcomed (either in person or on your
own separately). Let me know what your plan is and what you'd be interested
in doing, as well as any questions or concerns you have about le menu.
This will be soooooooo fun!
SER
________________
Sarah Rogers
Solutions Marketing
Jamcracker, Inc.
19000 Homestead Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408-725-4301
f: 408-725-4310
www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.
More about the Jamcracker solution:
www.jamcracker.com/solution/s1.shtml
Jamcracker in the news:
www.jamcracker.com/news/n1.shtml
=====================================
|
4,345 |
Subject: Re: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues -- ONE ISSUE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11154.
=====================================
More directly, does this mean DWR can determine that the market price we are
other market participants settle at does not work for them or California and
only decide to pay the portion they find is reasonable after the fact? If so
I don't think this answers all of the credit concerns. I am not sure DWR is a
creditworthy party to Enron either, nor do I think Enron want to take that
risk for balancing, load curtailment and trading?
Jubran
Susan J Mara@ENRON
04/16/2001 11:13 AM
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected],
[email protected], James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve C
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues -- ONE ISSUE
The one issue with this is the statement in the e-mail below that looks as if
DWR unilaterally decides reasonableness after the fact. I will follow up
with the ISO on this.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/16/2001 09:11 AM -----
Susan J Mara
04/16/2001 09:06 AM
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected],
[email protected], James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve C
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
FERC finally got resolved what CA could not. I believe this also takes care
of our credit issue on the ISO's demand response programs.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/16/2001 08:47 AM -----
"Fuller, Don" <[email protected]>
Sent by: "Happ, Susan" <[email protected]>
04/13/2001 04:21 PM
To: ISO Market Participants
<IMCEAEX-_O=CAISO_OU=CORPORATE_CN=DISTRIBUTION+20LISTS_CN=ISO+20MARKET+20PARTI
[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
Market Notice re Credit Issues
In response to the FERC order of April 6, 2001 re the issue of
creditworthiness, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has
authorized the ISO to make the following statement. To the extent (and only
to the extent) that a purchase is not otherwise paid by any party or payable
by another party meeting the credit standards set forth in the ISO Tariff
(another "Qualified Party"), DWR will assume financial responsibility for
all purchases by the ISO in its ancillary services and imbalance energy
markets based on bids or other offers determined to be reasonable. Such
determination of reasonableness will be made by DWR on a case by case basis
and communicated to the ISO. All bids into the ancillary services and
imbalance energy markets will be deemed to be contingent on the acceptance
of financial responsibility by DWR, to the extent not paid or payable by
another Qualified Party. Unless a supplier is otherwise notified, any bid
accepted by the ISO will be deemed to have the financial support of another
Qualified Party or DWR as specified in this notice. In addition to the
foregoing, DWR will assume financial responsibility for all purchases
resulting from the issuance by the ISO of emergency dispatch instructions,
to the extent not paid or payable by another Qualified Party. Payment for
such purchases shall be made according to the rate specified in the ISO
Tariff for emergency dispatch instructions. The ISO and/or DWR reserve the
right to rescind or modify the foregoing arrangements at any time and for
any reason, including a successful rehearing or appeal from the April 6
order.
As the FERC determined in its February 14 order that DWR is a creditworthy
counterparty, the ISO believes that the foregoing arrangements meet the
requirements of FERC's April 6 Order. Accordingly, the ISO expects that
suppliers will honor their obligations under the ISO Tariff and related
agreements to respond to ISO dispatch instructions.
Don Fuller
Director, Client Relations
California ISO
Phone: 916-608-7055
E-Mail: [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,346 |
Subject: (BN ) Enron Broadband's Indian CEO Sanjay Bhatnagar Resigns
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8442.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Sharonda Stephens/Corp/Enron on 01/23/2001 09:02 AM -----
Sharonda Stephens
01/23/2001 09:01 AM
To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven
J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric
Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Laura Schwartz/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeannie
Mandelker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Damon
Harvey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Keith Miceli/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Iona
Maclean/LON/ECT@ECT, Katy Lomax/LON/ECT@ECT, Vance Meyer/NA/Enron@ENRON, John
Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Johan
Zaayman/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gia
Maisashvili/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Katrin
Haux/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sharonda Stephens/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Adriana Domingues/SA/Enron@Enron, Alex Parsons/EU/Enron@Enron, Andrew
Morrison/LON/ECT@ECT, Aroma Pannu/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dennis
Vegas/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Eva Hoeffelman/LON/ECT@ECT, Fiona
Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Gina Taylor/OTS/Enron@Enron, Habiba
Bayi/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Henry
Means/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jackie Gentle/LON/ECT@ECT, Janet
Johnson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jennifer
Walker/NA/Enron@Enron, Jimmy Mogal/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Julie
Green/LON/ECT@ECT, Kelly Kimberly/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Kimberly Nelson/OTS/Enron@Enron, Lauren Goldblatt/NY/ECT@ECT, Mac
McClelland/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Margaret
Allen/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Marge Nadasky/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marie
Hejka/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Shelly Mansfield/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Yvette Parker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Moore/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Courtney Votaw/NA/Enron@Enron, Carrie A Robert/NA/Enron@Enron, Mika
Watanabe/AP/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alex
Parsons/EU/Enron@Enron, Carla Galvan/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Kathie Grabstald/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Derecskey/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joannie
Williamson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Peter Berger/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carol
Howes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Stacy Walker/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Darran Binns/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Larry
Carter/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:
Subject: (BN ) Enron Broadband's Indian CEO Sanjay Bhatnagar Resigns
----- Forwarded by Sharonda Stephens/Corp/Enron on 01/23/2001 09:01 AM -----
"ANN SCHMIDT, ENRON CORP." <[email protected]>
01/23/2001 08:56 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: (BN ) Enron Broadband's Indian CEO Sanjay Bhatnagar Resigns
enron story
Enron Broadband's Indian CEO Sanjay Bhatnagar Resigns
1/23/1 3:58 (New York)
Mumbai, Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Sanjay Bhatnagar, chief
executive of Enron Broadband and the main architect of Enron's
Dabhol power project in India, has resigned.
Bhatnagar was transferred to Enron Broadband, a unit of the
world's biggest energy trader, in November from chief executive of
Enron India Ltd., which set up a 740-megawatt power plant in
India's western Maharashtra state. Enron Broadband is setting up
an Internet data center in Mumbai and plans to sell connections to
the Web through optic fiber cables.
``He had transferred over to another of Enron's businesses
several months ago, so the transition at Enron India has already
been accomplished,'' a company statement said.
Enron's Indian unit, Dabhol Power company, has invested $3
billion in the 740 megawatts a year project and its success could
influence further overseas investment in the industry.
Enron, one of the first big foreign companies to enter the
country after India opened up the economy to foreign investors,
saw construction of the power plant delayed until December 1996
because of legal battles with local governments for three years.
Sanjay Bhatnagar joined Enron Corp. 1992.
--Sumit Sharma in the Mumbai newsroom (91-22) 284 0142 or
[email protected] /mh
Story illustration: To graph Enron Corp.'s share price, click on
{ENE US <Equity> GP <GO>}.
Company news:
ENE <Equity> CN
NI ELC
NI NRG
NI UTI
NI CMD
NI OIL
NI GAS
NI COS
NI INDIA
NI ASIA
NI ASIAX
NI US
NI WNEWS
NI NORTHAM
-0- (BN ) Jan/23/2001 8:58 GMT
=====================================
|
4,347 |
Subject: Re: FW: Proposal for Legal Services RCR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4591.
=====================================
FYI--unless I'm mistaken, the assignment that Steve gave Mike was a very
quick and dirty analysis as I recall, i.e., should by no means be the tail
that wags the dog.
P.S. I eye-balled Mike's numbers, below. Looks like about $75K for three
months.
Best,
Jeff
Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate
05/14/2001 08:07 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: FW: Proposal for Legal Services RCR
Recall that we terminated all retainers with Mike at the end of April and
have no RCR approval for Mike for work in May.
I called Mike and yelled at him for assuming he can work on issues with
Sandy's approval but without RCR approval. I called Sandi and she will
present a number of RCRs--see below.
I don't think we need Mike's help on windfalls profits--our position is clear
and the research is done.
Today and tomorrow, he's participating in two meetings with the Direct Access
Coalition at my request to support the language we (read "he") drafted. We
should get Leslie more integrated on this effort--but will not be able to
completely reduce Mike's work.
I'm really not sure what to do on power plant siting.
Also, I'm not sure what we should do about the Global Settlement stuff.
Apparently, Steve has already requested that Mike do some work on an issue
(how to insert a poison pill--if the Global Settlement is upset by litigation
or an AG indictment??). I am very concerned that we may lose control over
the issues or the forum unless we centralize the assignments in Jeff or
Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: MDay <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:27 PM
To: 'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'
Cc: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: Proposal for Legal Services RCR
Here are my proposals for RCRs related to legal services in support of Enron
legislative activities for May 2001 and the remainder of the session. These
estimates are for Enron budgetary purposes only, and do not represent a
commitment or a "not to exceed" figure for Goodin, MacBride. The actual
fees incurred may exceed these estimates, and GMSRD will bill Enron on a
hourly fee basis, as opposed to the retainer mechanism used in the first
part of this year.
1. Direct access legislation: This involves working on a continuing
series of bills related to direct access. I cannot estimate a specific
amount for the entire legislative project, it depends on how long it takes
for the legislature to enact significant direct access legislation. My
best estimate is $8,000 per month, or $24,000 over three months. The
estimate would increase if direct access is still at issue in the session's
last month--August. As of May 11, 2001, we have recorded approximately
$3000 in billings related to direct access in this month.
2. Improved powerplant siting and increased emission offset
legislation: $15,000 over three months, more if the final legislative
solution is delayed until August. We have recorded approximately $1,000 in
billings related to this area this month (through May 11, 2001).
3. Windfall profits tax bill: This project required additional upfront
legal research regarding the constitutionality of the proposed tax. We have
billed legal fees for approximately $4000 in May, 2001, up through May 11.
My best estimate is $18,000 over three months of session, more if the bill
is still alive in August.
4. Global settlement/Edison MOU/Plan B legislation: This project
covers the gamut of comprehensive legislative proposals to address the
energy crisis, including a proposal by the Governor, legislation to approve
the Edison MOU or an alternative plan which does not involve purchase of the
Edison transmission system, commonly referred to as "Plan B". As explained
by Paul Kaufman, this work is expected to involve less work in the near
term, and more as the legislation actually moved forward in the future.
Trying to average this increasing level of work over time is difficult, but
I am estimating $15,000 over the next three months, more if the package is
still being enacted in August. We have recorded approximately $2000 in
billings on this issue through May 11, 2001 this month.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of the above. We
are pleased to have the opportunity to be of service to Enron, and look
forward to continuing this relationship.
Mike Day
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP
=====================================
|
4,348 |
Subject: RE: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/702.
=====================================
Yes, yes, but the CPA wants to build plants to fill that net short, so it's NOT good.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:33 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Suspension Date
FYI. Note below that even the mighty and powerful Power Authority's own
crackerjack analysis asserts that there is still a net short (despite
DWR contracts and DA "stampede"), which should leave one to believe
that, contrary to Angelides' letter, the more the DA the better. Which
further supports Loretta Lynch's response to the Angelides' letter that
DA reduces the amount of spot power DWR has to buy.
Best,
Jeff
CONSUMER POWER AND CONSERVATION FINANCING AUTHORITY
Pace of Power Authority Renewable Portfolio Agenda is Slowed
Quite possibly the most significant action taken at the October 19
Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority (Power Authority)
was its inaction on contracts proposed for approval. The Power Authority
has aggressively pursued a broad renewable portfolio, with the intent to
approve contracts as soon as possible.
Instead of approving a number of contracts on its October 19 agenda, the
Power Authority deferred calendared decisions on request for bids until
its November 2 meeting, acknowledging that no action can be taken until
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) rate agreement stalemate has
been resolved.
Chairman Freeman stated that the Public Utility Commission's rejection
of the rate agreement has created an obstacle for the Power Authority to
exercise renewable contracts, to contract for peaker generation and/or
to implement demand side programs. The Power Authority relies upon DWR's
credit to fund these programs, and until a rate agreement is finalized
the Power Authority cannot sign contracts.
Freeman indicated that the Power Authority has signed letters of intent
to purchase output from 14 biomass facilities in the Central Valley, as
well as 400 MW generated by wind.
With the Current Glut of Contracts, Why Do We Need Additional Reserves?
Kellan Flukinger, Senior Advisor to Chairman Freeman and Laura Doll,
provided a detailed presentation explaining why he believes the Power
Authority must contract for additional renewable and peaking generation.
Flukinger believes that despite direct access and the current glut of
electricity supplied in long-term contracts, there still appears to be a
net short of a few thousand megawatts within the State.
Flukinger concluded that the State still is at the mercy of electric
generators who are not subject to PUC regulatory authority and who have
no real obligation to build and maintain new facilities or to serve
customers within the State. He believes that the short-term contracts
and spot purchases leave the state vulnerable to price-spikes and supply
shortages. He believes that the reserve can be managed through
Time-of-Use and Real-Time-Pricing, conservation, interruptibles, demand
side management, renewables and peakers.
Power Authority Names William Barry as Chief Financial Officer
William Barry was approved as Chief Financial Officer of the Power
Authority at its October 19 Board meeting in Sacramento. Mr. Barry
currently works for the City of San Francisco, and has worked in the
past for the New York Power Authority.
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,349 |
Subject: Re: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/811.
=====================================
I recognise that I am new to the debate. However, my concern about focusing
on open access terms is that non-discrimiantory access deals primarily with
competitive issues. It does nothing to directly address the lack of
transmission capacity and generating capacity. I'm not certain what path 15
information is, and I presume FTRs are Firm Trading/Transmission rights, but
these deal with use of existing capacity and has nothing to do with
incentives to expand capacity to meet demand. Presumable, market
participants would use access to existing capacity to take advantage of the
high prices being experienced in the california market, which seems to be
caused by a combination of a lack of capacity and odd trading rules that work
to exacerbate prices in times of shortages.
However, we could argue that competitive access is related to the incentives
of incumbent generators to keep new suppliers from entereing the market. I
think I have a way to ask a follow-up question that will address this point.
I will send a revised draft soon.
Mary Hain@ECT
04/10/2000 10:34
To: Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES,
[email protected]
cc: Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Cynthia
Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT,
[email protected]@ENRON
Subject: Re: Draft Questions for Hoecker
I disagree with you about question 2. While I agree that transmission acess
wasn't the number one problem in California this summer, transmission access
is not close to being perfect in California (for example PG&E controls the
information about path 15 and the ISO still has not auctioned off 100 percent
of the FTRs in the market) and certainly corrections to these problems would
make the market more liquid which would help to alleviate the price spike
problem. So even though access is not the number one or even the number two
problem causing price spikes this summer it contributed and it is one of the
biggest problems with the California market, relatively, and it is something
that FERC can fix (as compared to fixing hedging and underscheduling which
they seem content to leave to the state regulators). Perhaps Tom could fix
his question accordingly.
Sarah Novosel@ENRON
10/04/2000 07:41 AM
To: Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia
Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Tom:
The questions look good, and I agree with Rick's comments regarding RTO
participation. We should try and pin Hoecker down on the problems with the
voluntary approach. I have a couple of additional thoughts on the questions:
In question two, you should also ask Hoecker directly about the time it takes
to interconnect. The interconnection process can take a long time due to
utility holdups that are not necessary. I would ask something like, "What is
the length of time it typically takes to interconnect a generator to the grid
once the generator makes the request for interconnection? Can FERC take
action to shortened this time to help accelerate the development and
operation of new generation in California and elsewhere throughout the
country?"
On question three, you have asked me in the past whether open access for all
uses of the grid would have helped California this summer, and as we have
discussed, while it may have helped, lack of transmission access was probably
not the primary cause for the problems in California this summer. Given
that, could this question backfire on us? What if Hoecker says no, expanding
FERC jurisdiction wouldn't have had much impact on California this summer?
Finally, you may want to send these questions to some of our other California
people, including Jeff Dasovich, Sue Mara and Mona Petrochko, to make sure
that the facts stated in Question No. 1 are accurate.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sarah
Tom Briggs
10/03/2000 02:48 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia
Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Attached please find draft questions to be provided to Sen. Gorton for his
hearing on NW price spikes to be held Thursday. I hve tried to design
questions that focus on FERC jurisdiction. However, i may have med the
questions too specific and detailed. please give me your comments and ideas.
=====================================
|
4,350 |
Subject: RE: PGE -- Securing gas suppliers issue
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3016.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/25/2001 03:17 PM -----
MBD <[email protected]>
01/25/2001 12:41 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, MBD
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: RE: PGE -- Securing gas suppliers issue
Hot Flash:
The ALJ in the case (Tim Kenney) just advised me that he is so busy that he
will not even read any responses to the PG&E petition for issuing a security
interest in accounts receiveables. Don't ask if this is due process--it's
not. The commission is clearly going to grant this authority at the
emergency meeting tomorrow at 1:30. In voice mails from Travis, he
recommended voicing some concerns so that we can raise the issue later if we
feel Enron's interests have been prejudiced by how PG&E implements this. I
also received the indication that EES and ENA were very concerned about
filing anything negative that could upset the present arrangments with PG&E
on DASR matters. I recommend not filing. I do not believe we need to
express any concerns to raise them later. We are not in a formal waiver
situation, and the commission is acting before any reasonable responses were
possible. Let me know by VOICE MAIL what you want to do. If you want
something filed, please also advise my associate, Jeanne Bennett who will be
monitoring this issue in the office today while I am in Sacramento. Her
direct line is 415-765-8449. Thanks, Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 5:26 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: PGE -- Securing gas suppliers issue
To Be discussed on 10:30am call tomorrow.
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 01/24/2001 07:24 PM -----
Travis
McCullough@EC To: James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
T cc: Elizabeth
Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T
Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
01/24/2001 Subject: PGE -- Securing gas
suppliers issue
03:43 PM
Jim -- the following are our concerns about PG&E's proposal/possible points
to make in a response:
1. Enron would be one of the largest unsecured creditors in the event of
a PG&E bankruptcy; our claim may become even larger depending on the
extent to which we acquire additional claims against the utilities through
the PX or ISO. We are therefore interested in any action that would reduce
the pool of assets available to unsecured creditors.
2. This proposal may be to our benefit, or to our detriment. There is
not a great deal of detail in the proposal currently on the table, and
Enron needs additional information in order to evaluate the proposal.
Certainly, we need to evaluate this in light of other developments.
3. The proposal contemplates pledging "existing and future" receivables
to secure obligations owed to gas suppliers; PGE shows approx. $1.3 billion
in A/R as of 9/30; will that (or an amount of like magnitude) be pledged as
security under this plan? Granting gas suppliers security may be fine with
us, but we don't have a great interest in OVER-collateralizing their
positions. More current information on the current A/R balances and the
extent to which obligations to suppliers will be secured will be helpful.
4. Do they intend to extend this security to ALL gas suppliers, or only
those that are refusing to supply PGE under current circumstances?
5. Do they intend to secure obligations on a going-forward basis only, or
will they also secure their obligations with respect to payables that have
already accrued?
6. PG&E is scheduled to make a couple of large payments to ENE tomorrow;
what is PG&E's ability to make those payments for gas already delivered?
7. Given the extension of the DOE order, it seems that consideration of
this petition could be delayed for a few days to allow interested parties
sufficient time to evaluate its implications.
Give me a call with any questions.
In light of the DOE extension of the emergency gas supply order, there
should now be adequate time for PG&E to respond to these points and
clarify their proposal.
Travis McCullough
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street EB 3817
Houston Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 853-1575
Fax: (713) 646-3490
=====================================
|
4,351 |
Subject: RE: May 5 Testimony Preparation GIR/NGS
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/486.
=====================================
Brian:
Thanks for your memo. Let me add the following comments. There should be a
chapter on the retail settlement with the key parties listed. Tom Beach and
Vernon should be added to the chapter on impact on electric generators. The
Core Interstate Unbundling section where you list TXU and Shell was, I
believe, originally supposed to include program benefits for the core
aggregators as well, and you should add Enron to the list for that Chapter.
Let me know if you concur with my recollection. Thanks, Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: Cherry, Brian - TPBKC [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:17 AM
To: Cherry, Brian - TPBKC; 'Leslie, John'; 'Elsesser, Evie'; 'McCrea,
Keith'; 'Pocta, R. Mark'; 'Dasovich, Jeff'; 'Beach, Tom'; 'Burkholder,
John'; 'Amirault, Paul'; 'Alexander, Michael'; 'Chancellor, Craig';
'Dingwall, B.'; 'Douglass, Dan@SES'; 'Fawcett, Jeff'; 'Porter, Doug';
'Rochman, Michael'; 'Counihan, Rick'; 'Bayless, David'; 'Day, Mike'; 'Paul,
Joe'; 'Jimison, John'; 'Foss, Robert'; McVay, Nancy W - TPNWM; 'Ramirez,
Jaime'; 'Black, Larry'; 'Gileau, Pat'; 'Johnson, Pamela'; 'How-Downing,
Lindsey'
Cc: Lorenz, Lad - TPLPL; Nelson, Eric B. - TPEBN; Morrow, Rick - TP3RMM;
Sullivan, Glen J.; Follett, B. David - TPDBF; Freeman, Kimberly; Hubbard,
Lisa J.; Angeles, Zenee G. - TPZGA; Schavrien, Lee; Reed, William; Brill,
Thomas R.; Van Lierop, Jan - TP2JXV; Smith, Anne S. - TPASS; Harrigan, James
P. - TP1JPH; Surak, Thomas M. - TP1TMS; Fair, Pam; Sakarias, Wayne P.;
Purves, Ralph A.; Fong, Ed; Angeles, Zenee G. - TPZGA; Van Lierop, Jan -
TP2JXV; Wright, Gillian - TP1GXW; Watson, Steven - TP2SAW; Betonte, Robert -
TP2RSB; Barker, David - TPDTB; Peterson, Lorraine - TP1LMP; 'Martin
Collette1'; 'Leitzinger, Jeff'
Subject: May 5 Testimony Preparation GIR/NGS
As you know, ALJ Biren has established May 5 as the date that testimony is
due in support of all settlements filed on April 3 and April 17. While she
may offer additional guidance at the PHC on April 24, we need to start the
process of formalizing the testimony supporting the Comprehensive Settlement
Agreement.
We have already identified the content and parties responsible for drafting
the testimony (as identified below). The testimony will be based on a "hub
and spoke" approach, where SoCalGas will focus on the mechanics of
unbundling, describing in detail how the capacity and retail unbundling
process will work, with other parties filing testimony that complements
SoCalGas' testimony while offering the parties individual perspective on why
the settlement is in the public interest and benefits customers, the state
of California, mom and apple pie - you get the picture. In addition, I
would like to suggest the following deadlines for getting testimony prepared
and circulated so that all of the signatories to the settlement agreement
have an opportunity to review and comment appropriately on the drafts. I
suggest we adhere to the following schedule:
April 25 Draft Outlines of Testimony (Optional)
April 28 1st Draft Testimony
May 2 2nd Draft Testimony
May 5 File Testimony w/Commission
I think that it is essential that we circulate the draft testimony twice so
that everyone knows what will be filed on the May 5. The schedule is
compressed, but we have to operate within the time parameters we've been
given. The testimony assignments are identified below. There has been one
change from what we had agreed to previously. SoCalGas will sponsor a
witness on the "Concepts of Unbundling". I would also like to suggest that
we file the testimony a one comprehensive document. I have suggested a
chapter-style format that might work, but I am open to suggestion. Let me
know what you think.
Chapter 1 SoCalGas Concepts of Unbundling
Chapter 2 SoCalGas Mechanics of Unbundling -
Capacity
Chapter 3 SoCalGas Mechanics of Unbundling -
Retail
Chapter 4 ORA Unbundling Policy and Core
Impacts
Chapter 5 WGS/WHP/Enron Transmission, Storage and Balancing
Chapter 6 Edison/Calpine/Dynegy Pricing and Benefits to Electric
Generators
Chapter 7 TXU/Shell Core Interstate Capacity
Unbundling
Chapter 8 Transwestern Primary and Secondary Receipt
Point Access
Chapter 9 Indicated Producers Open Season and Impacts on
California Production
Chapter 10 Calpine Metering Program
=====================================
|
4,352 |
Subject: Ohio-Based Electric Utility's Deregulation Plan Cleared
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/605.
=====================================
Dayton, Ohio-Based Electric Utilitys Deregulation Plan Cleared ? 09/22/200=
0=20
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: Dayton Daily News - Ohio Copyrig=
ht=20
(C) 2000 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter=
=20
(TM)=20
COLUMBUS, Ohio--The Dayton Power and Light Co. on Thursday received final=
=20
approval of its deregulation plan, setting the stage for residents and=20
businesses to shop for electricity Jan. 1.
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio endorsed DP&L's transition plan tha=
t=20
includes a 5 percent reduction in the generation portion of residential=20
electric bills and three-year cap on rates. The discount is expected to sav=
e=20
the average DP=02=14customer $2.50 per month over the next three years.=20
"With (Thursday's) PUCO approval, DP=02=14has a transition plan in place th=
at=20
increases our growth potential in a competitive market," said Allen M. Hill=
,=20
president and chief executive officer of DPL Inc., parent company of DP&L.=
=20
"At the same time, it provides customers with a smooth transition to a=20
deregulated supply market."
DP=02=14provides electric energy generation, transmission and distribution=
=20
services to approximately 500,000 customers in all or part of 24 counties i=
n=20
west central Ohio.
Utility deregulation is a trend across the nation as state regulators seek =
to=20
lower prices for electricity, telephone and natural gas by replacing=20
monopolies with competition. Under deregulation, electric service is divide=
d=20
three ways--generation, transmission and local distribution.
DP&L's three-year plan, versus five years for most Ohio utilities, places a=
=20
ceiling on the cost customers pay for electric generation for three years=
=20
while fixing transmission charges for six years.
Customers will have the choice of shopping for electric power from various=
=20
suppliers, including DP&L. Those who stay with DP=02=14will get the 5 perce=
nt=20
discount.
Names of potential competitors have not been identified.
Those who select a new power supplier will have the electricity delivered=
=20
over DP=02=14lines. The utility will be encouraged to offer incentives so t=
hat 20=20
percent of its customers will shop around.
After three years, DP=02=14will have no restrictions on what it may charge =
for=20
electric generation. The utility also will have the flexibility to purchase=
=20
or sell assets without PUCO approval.
However, competition from new suppliers is expected to keep electric rates=
=20
under control, according to Robert S. Tongren, Ohio Consumers' Counsel.
"The new generation (capacity) being proposed and built right now in the=20
state of Ohio is gigantic," Tongren said. "It is huge."
He said California experienced post-deregulation price spikes during a rece=
nt=20
heat wave because the state is across mountains and can't tap into the U.S.=
=20
power grid. In addition, he said price controls make it unattractive for=20
companies to build new generating plants.
Tongren said his office helped write the DP=02=14transition plan and endors=
es it.
PUCO Chairman Alan Schriber said the plan "provides an opportunity to=20
jump-start the market by providing the resources for retail customers to=20
begin to shop for competitive generation services."
Schriber, a Dayton native, said the plan came before the PUCO as a settleme=
nt=20
in which the overwhelming majority of intervenors either supported or did n=
ot=20
oppose the resolution of the very complex issues inherent in this case.
"Nevertheless, the commissioners carefully scrutinized every aspect of the=
=20
settlement and determined that its approval is in the public interest," he=
=20
said. "Considered in its totality, we believe that our order approving the=
=20
settlement will provide DP=02=14customers the protection they are entitled =
to=20
along with the opportunity to acclimate themselves to the idea of shopping=
=20
for electricity." Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation Relevance=
=20
Score on Scale of 100:=20
99______________________________________________________________________ To=
=20
review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClipsor contact Dow Jon=
es=20
Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] by phone at=
=20
800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact=
=20
your local sales representative.)=20
______________________________________________________________________=20
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,353 |
Subject: Status Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28093.
=====================================
Status Report
Much of the first half of May was dedicated to organizing stakeholders and
lobbying for the passage of SB 28x (Sher), which was the Legislature first
attempt at siting reform and included several IEP-sponsored proposals. SB
28x was the last bill to be signed by the Governor and chaptered into law
before the close of the first extraordinary session. The final version
included:
? Conforming the timing of offsets for power plants to Clean Air Act
requirements.
? Substituting CEQA-style hearings for the trial-like proceedings of the
CEC.
? Streamlining the permit process for the modernization of existing power
plant sites.
? Giving consideration to the positive environmental impacts of a proposed
project.
? Improving the timeliness and coordination of state and local agency
review.
? Extending the current deadlines for the expedited review for "peaker"
plants and expanding the application to consider re-certification or
replacement.
There was also a small number of instances where Edson + Modisette assisted
on other issues at the request of IEP staff or IEP member companies. As
always, Edson + Modisette is here if you need assistance on any other
issues.
Since SB 28x is only a first step in making changes to the siting process,
IEP member should now be thinking about what is next. A list of IEP
proposals still on the table include:
? Permitting local agencies to make zoning changes or other decisions for
power plants contingent upon CEC CEQA Compliance
? Giving deference to other state and regional agencies
? Easing the threshold for override of local land use requirements.
? Making the ISO responsible for determining interconnection requirements
Assembly Member Calderon's office is currently reviewing these proposals in
conjunction with an effort to develop an environmental dispatch protocol.
IEP has weighed-in on this issue and has strongly advocated that 1)
reliability should always be the first priority; 2) protocol should be
limited to RMR units and out-of-market calls only; and, 3) any follow-up to
SB 28x should also consider IEP siting proposals left on the table. I
circulated Asm. Calderon's proposed environmental dispatch language to IEP
members last Friday which targets those generating units running beyond
their air permits per the Governor's most recent executive order. In the
short-term, I expect there will be additional stakeholders meetings on this
and other siting issues as Asm. Calderon decides how to proceed and in what
legislative vehicle.
All this action on the Assembly side does not rule out Senator Sher's part
on the siting issue. Since SB 28x moved to the Governor's desk, Sen. Sher
has ensured us and others that that was only the first step and he would
like to continue pursuing additional siting reforms during this legislative
session. SB 28xx in the second extraordinary session is currently a spot
bill ready to take up that cause. There are pros and cons for either author
to move forward on siting reform, but I would recommend for the time being
that IEP let Asm. Calderon and Sen. Sher work out their turf wars while IEP
shares its proposals with both.
There are also other siting bills with the potential to move forward. SB
86xx (Peace/Burton) was introduced last week which would require a developer
to begin construction on a project within 6 months of receiving
certification from CEC or lose its permit, and introduces the newly created
California Consumer Power and Financing Authority into the siting process.
Senator Morrow has called stakeholders together this week to provide input
on SB 76xx which is currently in spot bill format. Asm. Wright still has
his siting vehicle, AB 48xx, poised to move if needed; and Sen. Battin has
several siting bills introduced also if needed.
I have mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating. With the interest
in siting issues in the Capitol having waned only slightly, IEP members may
want to consider meeting again to develop a second list of proposed siting
reforms (in addition to the above issues left over from the first list).
Such a list should take into account the Governor's Executive Orders and
possibly what generators would be willing to give up to the enviros in
exchange for "big ticket" reforms.
Please call if you have any questions about the above invoice or any of the
siting issues pending before the Legislature.
Sincerely,
JULEE MALINOWSKI-BALL
Senior Associate
Julee Malinowski-Ball
Senior Associate
Edson + Modisette
916-552-7070
FAX-552-7075
[email protected]
=====================================
|
4,354 |
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Diane Dimeff <[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4465.
=====================================
Jeff,
This message did not seem to get to you. What am I
doing wrong with your address:
[email protected]?
JT
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
X-Apparently-To: [email protected] via web4006
X-Track: 1: 40
Received: from haasb.Haas.Berkeley.EDU (EHLO haas.berkeley.edu)
(128.32.67.113) by mta215.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 08 Apr 2001 16:14:51
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost) by haas.berkeley.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) id
f38NEkP28593; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report ; report-type=delivery-status ;
boundary="f38NEkP28593.986771686/haas.berkeley.edu"
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
Content-Length: 41405
The original message was received at Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
from web4006.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.40]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
\dasovich
(reason: can't create (user) output file)
(expanded from: <[email protected]>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
procmail: Quota exceeded while writing "/var/mail/dasovich"
550 5.0.0 \dasovich... Can't create output
- C.DTF
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from web4006.mail.yahoo.com (web4006.mail.yahoo.com
[216.115.104.40]) by haas.berkeley.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id
f38NEiP28589 for <[email protected]>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:14:44 -0700
(PDT)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Received: from [63.192.35.218] by web4006.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 08 Apr 2001
16:14:48 PDT
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Tambornino <[email protected]>
Subject: New Admissions Calls
To: Ken Bruce <[email protected]>, Deepika <[email protected]>,
Lesley Keffer <[email protected]>, Michael Plumb <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Cc: Diane Dimeff <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-110334457-986771688=:5325"
Comrades:
Attached you will find the call assignments for the
new admits. We all have five or six people to call in
the next 7-10 days. I made a couple of matches where
it seemed there was some kind of similarity in
background or career, but for the most part, the
assignments were essentially random. The list
includes names, phones at home and work, company and
title.
Remember these are newly admitted students who have
not yet accepted our offer of admission. The deadline
to accept this offer is April 27th.
A general outline of the phone call, should you choose
to use it, would be:
1) Congratulations on being admitted to the Haas
School
2) indentify yourself as "involved with the student
government at the Haas School, and the evening office
asked me to give you a call to see if you had any
questions about the program. Then answer the
questions, if you can, or refer them to me or Ken for
further follow-up
3)describe your own experience at school and how it
has worked with your career--timing, advancement,
scheduling, tuition payments, etc.
4)invite them to attend a class so we can show them
around. EMBA office will coordinate.
5)remind them of the "New Students Admit Reception" on
April 19th from 7-9 in the Wells Fargo Room (drinks
and hors d'oeuvres served). (Refer to Diane's recent
email for other particulars.
Some pieces of information you might want to have
handy
-required new student orientation is August 11-12;
classes start on the 13th
-fees will be $1580 per unit; 42 units required,
including the two units for MPAR
-orientation packages will be sent out mid-June
-administration will call each new student in July
with class schedules
-second round of admits come out in early June
Thanks very much for helping. Let me know if there is
anything else you may need or could suggest to help in
this effort.
Joseph Tambornino
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
- Applicant Call Assignments.xls
=====================================
|
4,355 |
Subject: GIR: FELLOW SIGNATORIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT - ALTRA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Sullivan', 'Lad - TPLPL', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Glen J." <[email protected]', 'Lorenz']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1164.
=====================================
FYI. Under the settlement with SoCal, PG&E and countless others, Altra was
going to provide the platform for the (unregulated) secondary markets in
intrastate storage, capacity and imbalance trading rights. Altra declined
and SoCal and PG&E will now look for someone else to provide the service.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 09/06/2000 08:52
PM ---------------------------
"Angeles, Zenee G. - TPZGA" <[email protected]> on 09/06/2000 07:27:23 PM
To: "Alexander, Michael@sce" <[email protected]>, "Amirault, Paul@AEC"
<[email protected]>, "Bayless, David@Utility" <[email protected]>,
"Beach, Thomas@Crossborder" <[email protected]>, "Burkholder,
John@cts/whb" <[email protected]>, "Chancellor, Craig@Calpine"
<[email protected]>, "Counihan, Rick@Green Mountain"
<[email protected]>, "Dasovich, Jeff@Enron"
<[email protected]>, "Day, Michael@GMSSR" <[email protected]>, "Dingwall,
Brian@UEM" <[email protected]>, "Elsesser, Evelyn@aelaw"
<[email protected]>, "Johnson, Pamela@REMAC" <[email protected]>, "Jun,
Christine@aelaw" <[email protected]>, "Karp, Joseph@Whitecase"
<[email protected]>, "Keeler, Paul@BR" <[email protected]>, "Leslie,
John@Luce" <[email protected]>, "McCrea, Keith@CIG/CM" <[email protected]>,
"Paul, Joe@Dynegy" <[email protected]>, "Pocta, Mark@ORA"
<[email protected]>, "Porter, Doug@SCE" <[email protected]>, "Rochman,
Michael@CUB" <[email protected]>, "Rochman, Michael@SPURR"
<[email protected]>, "Scott, Susan@TW" <[email protected]>, "Worster,
Gerard@TXU" <[email protected]>, "Zaiontz, Jean@BP" <[email protected]>
cc: "Sullivan, Glen J." <[email protected]>, "Lorenz, Lad - TPLPL"
<[email protected]>, "Suwara, J.- TPJUS" <[email protected]>, "Betonte,
Robert - TP2RSB" <[email protected]>, "Follett, B. David - TPDBF"
<[email protected]>
Subject: GIR: FELLOW SIGNATORIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT - ALTRA
Dear fellow signatories to the Comprehensive Settlement:
On Friday of last week, SoCalGas and PG&E informed ALJ Biren that Altra had
definitively declined to offer the electronic trading services that both the
already-approved PG&E settlement and the pending SoCalGas/SDG&E Comprehensive
Settlement contemplated would be provided specifically by Altra for at least
an intial period.? Both SoCalGas and PG&E sent a letter and email to to the
full service list yesterday (Tues, 9/5) informing parties of this development.
SoCalGas believes that some modification to the Comprehensive Settlement in
necessary to take this development into account, and that we then need to
file the modification as soon as possible with the Commission.? The ALJ has
indicated to us that some formal filing with the Commission in response to
this development will be necessary.
We want to work with the signatories to the Comprehensive Settlement to reach
a consensus as soon as possible.? Our goal is to cause little or no delay in
the processing of a decision on the Comprehensive Settlement.
What SoCalGas has in mind is modifying the settlement to remove the specific
naming of Altra and to insert language saying that SoCalGas will select and
contract with a third-party provider for a specified period of time, without
identifying in the settlement who that will be.?? We also need to consider
whether we should address in the revision to the settlement how we will
handle the possibility that the third-party provider will not be ready to
operate by the April 1, 2001 date the settlement provides for the monthly
imbalance trading, OFO day imbalance chip trading, and storage rights
trading.? SoCalGas is looking at interim arrangements that it could provide
in-house starting April 1, 2001, until the third-party provider could begin
service.? We also might consider what would happen if no third party provider
can be found.
To avoid any claims that we have not complied with the settlement rules,
today we mailed and emailed to the full service list a notice of a settlement
conference for Wednesday of next week.? We want to file something with the
Commission very promptly thereafter.
Please feel free to contact Glen Sullivan at 619-699-5027, Lad Lorenz at
213-244-3820, Bob Betonte at 213-244-3832, or June Suwara at 213-244-3504 on
this subject.?
For those of you who have not heard, Brian Cherry has submitted his
resignation from Sempra Energy's Regulatory Affairs Dept. and will be going
to work shortly for PG&E in a similar capacity.
=====================================
|
4,356 |
Subject: The Original Advantage #e13105
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13388.
=====================================
[IMAGE]
June 05, 2001
Can't read this email? Click here
Issue#: e13105
PROVANTAGE Customer: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the?
Original Advantage Click here
(Do Not Reply to this email)
Products that give you the Professional Advantage!
[IMAGE]
EtherFast 4-Port Cable/DSL Router
By Linksys
Connect Your Network to Your High-Speed Cable or DSL Internet Pipeline with
the Ultimate in Security and Control.
NEW LOW PRICE!
??$98.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
ACT! 2000 v5.0 for Windows 2000/9x
By Interact Commerce Corporation
Turns contacts into relationships & relationships into results.
Everything you need to know about your customers at precisely the right time
...More
VERSION UPGRADE??$93.23
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
VL950SL 19in/18.0v 25mm 1600x1200 75Hz Flat OSD Di
By CTX
CTX introduces the newest short length monitors in its Value Series, These
monitors offer the same established benefits of the Value Series line but in
...More
??$266.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Mathematica 4.1 for Windows 9x/NT/2000/Me
By Wolfram Research
For what's new in v4.1 Click Here.
A single, tightly integrated environment ...More
??$1319.74
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
50X Reader EIDE ATAPI 128K 150MS 7500KB/Sec
By ASUS
The ASUS CD-S500 breaks through the bottlenecks inherent in traditional
CD-ROM technology with innovative solutions to sustain accuracy and stability
of ...More
??$39.75
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
RoboHelp Office 9
By eHelp Corporation
RoboHELP Office is a powerful tool that lets you create full-featured Help
systems for your Web site and software applications. This versatile tool
automates ...More
??$823.98
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Adobe Photoshop v6.0 for Windows 98/ME/2000/NT
By Adobe Systems
Adobe Photoshop 6.0 software introduces the next generation of image editing
with powerful new features that offer something for every user. Delivering
...More
??$177.89
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Borland Enterprise Studio Java Edition
By Borland
Buy Borland Enterprise Studio Jave Edition (full product or upgrade) now and
receive a free copy of JBuilder 5 Enterprise! After registering your ...More
??$6463.75
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Home Wireless Gateway
By 3Com
Share high-speed Internet access, personal files, printers and other devices
wirelessly and over Ethernet wires, without a hub. Go online without being
...More
??$287.99
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New!
MS Office Personal Portfolio 2002 for Office XP/2k
By Microsoft
Extends Office 97, 2000 & XP for personal & home use.
Everyone in the family will benefit from this easy-to-use application. Choose
from 600 ...More
??$21.60
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New Version!
InterBase v6.0 Server License for Windows 98/Me/NT
By Borland
InterBase 6 is a high performance, cross-platform, SQL Standards compliant
relational database that combines ease of use, low maintenance costs and
enterprise ...More
??$195.20
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Barcode Anything WEDGE WAND Scanner
By Zebra
Simple, error-free bar code reading is now at your fingertips! The easiest,
fastest, inexpensive way to input bar code information into your computer.
...More
??$125.39
[IMAGE]
?
?
Web Address: www.PROVANTAGE.com?
?Toll Free: 800-336-1166???? Fax: 330-494-5260???? email:
[email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | FREE Catalog
,2001 PROVANTAGE Corporation, 7249 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720
Products, prices, terms, conditions, or offers may change at any time.
Company and/or product names are generally trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective companies. Some promotional text may be
copyrighted by the product's manufacturer.?
The Original Advantage promotional email is delivered only to customers of
PROVANTAGE Corporation. PROVANTAGE customers have purchased products in the
past and submitted their email address as part of the checkout process. Or,
customers have entered their name in the "Add to Email List" box on the
PROVANTAGE.com home page. Any customer may unsubscribe from the list at any
time by going to http://www.provantage.com/unsubscribe.htm. The email address
is permanently removed from additional promotional electronic mailings, and
will not be reactivated unless requested by the customer.??
[IMAGE]
BizRate Customer Certified (GOLD) Site
=====================================
|
4,357 |
Subject: The Original Advantage #e11805
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3050.
=====================================
[IMAGE]
May 21, 2001
Can't read this email? Click here
Issue#: e11805
PROVANTAGE Customer: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the?
Original Advantage Click here
(Do Not Reply to this email)
Products that give you the Professional Advantage!
[IMAGE]
USB 4-Port Hub
By Linksys
Ready to run right out of the box, the 4-Port Hub lets you access up to four
USB devices simultaneously from your computer's USB port, allowing you to ...
More
??$28.25
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Gigaset 2420 Base Station System
By SIEMENS
Complete Cordless Communication System for Home & Small Business
Add cordless handsets one at a time as you need them - up to a total of ...
More
??$235.89
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
6GB Flipdisk PC CARD Hard Drive
By Amacom
The Flipdisk utilizes a unique patented flip PC card hinge mechanism which
folds away neatly and compactly into the unit, thus eliminating the need for
...More
??$280.43
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
ARCserve 2000 Workgroup Edition
By Computer Associates
ARCserve 2000 Workgroup Edition is a backup software solution which provides
backup for one Windows NT or Windows 2000 server and an unlimited number of
...More
??$409.89
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
McAfee Office
By McAfee
McAfee Office v3.0 combines everything you'll ever need to fix, protect,
optimize, and secure your PC into a single integrated utility. McAfee Office
includes ...More
??$56.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Stylus Photo 890 2880x720dpi Full Bleed USB
By Epson
Give your customers wondrous results that take superior photo quality images
right to the edge of each and every 6-color print. Offers quick and
continuous ...More
??$264.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New!
IEEE 802.11b Compliant Wireless Gateway
By D-Link
The D-Link DI-713P is a broadband IEEE 802.11b compliant wireless gateway.
The DI-713P provides the ability to share a broadband connection as well as
...More
??$225.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Smart-UPS 700
By APC
Smart-UPS protects your data by supplying network-grade battery backup when
power fails. With PowerChuter plus software the uninterruptible power supply
...More
??$329.00
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Wheel Mouse with Light and Opto/Mech PS/2
By Dexxa
Once you try the Dexxa Wheel mouse with Light you may never go back to a
normal mouse. Designed to work with applications that support standard
scrolling ...More
??$4.50
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
E90 19in/18.0v 27mm 1600x1200 86HZ MPR-II
By ViewSonic
The E2 Series from ViewSonic are the most affordable monitors available in
the market today. As the price/ performance leader, ViewSonic provides an
intelligent ...More
??$258.22
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Fireball AS 40GB EIDE Ultra-ATA/100 3.5LP 7200RPM
By Quantum Hard Drives
For the highest performance on the desktop, Quantum Fireball Plus AS drives
set a new standard in capacity, performance, acoustics, and reliability.
Besides ...More
??$145.74
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
VS-19SN 19in/18v 25mm 1600x1200 75Hz Shortneck OSD
By KDS
The VS-19sn represents a revolutionary breakthrough in balancing the need for
larger display size with decreasing desk space. Incorporating a new 19-inch
...More
??$217.68
[IMAGE]
?
?
Web Address: www.PROVANTAGE.com?
?Toll Free: 800-336-1166???? Fax: 330-494-5260???? email:
[email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | FREE Catalog
,2001 PROVANTAGE Corporation, 7249 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720
Products, prices, terms, conditions, or offers may change at any time.
Company and/or product names are generally trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective companies. Some promotional text may be
copyrighted by the product's manufacturer.?
The Original Advantage promotional email is delivered only to customers of
PROVANTAGE Corporation. PROVANTAGE customers have purchased products in the
past and submitted their email address as part of the checkout process. Or,
customers have entered their name in the "Add to Email List" box on the
PROVANTAGE.com home page. Any customer may unsubscribe from the list at any
time by going to http://www.provantage.com/unsubscribe.htm. The email address
is permanently removed from additional promotional electronic mailings, and
will not be reactivated unless requested by the customer.??
[IMAGE]
BizRate Customer Certified (GOLD) Site
=====================================
|
4,358 |
Subject: No new plants
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10369.
=====================================
This may be of some use, I am still looking
C. Discouraging New Power Supplies
California is not an easy state in which to build a power plant. Licensing=
=20
procedures and rules are expensive and time consuming. Environmental=20
regulations are among the most stringent in the nation, and power plants ar=
e=20
unpopular neighbors, often sparking resistance from local residents. In=20
California, plants often take three to five years from concept to operation=
,=20
while in other Western states the process can be as short as one year.
The long delays in adding capacity in California had set the state on the=
=20
road to shortages long before restructuring.
Thanks to these barriers, in 1996, as restructuring was debated, California=
=20
had not seen a new power plant built in a decade. Yet the state still had=
=20
excess energy generation capacity. Indeed, one reason for restructuring was=
=20
to let market incentives determine capacity decisions. The architects of=20
restructuring assumed that competition and profit opportunity would bring n=
ew=20
power plants to keep electricity supply well ahead of demand in spite of th=
e=20
difficulties state regulations present. And, despite restructuring=01,s fai=
lure=20
to allow a competitive market, restructuring did stimulate new capacity=01*
between March 1998 and the end of 2000 the California Energy Commission had=
=20
licensed nine new power plants that will generate over 6,000 MW, about 16=
=20
percent of the state=01,s average daily load.
But these new plants are so slow in coming=01*the first won=01,t be online =
until=20
mid-2001=01*they won=01,t help solve the current shortage. The long delays =
in=20
adding capacity in California had set the state on the road to shortages lo=
ng=20
before restructuring. Since 1988, the state energy commission has been=20
predicting that demand would catch up with and surpass supply. But state=20
leaders did nothing to change the barriers that discouraged new companies=
=20
from building new power plants. At first, discussions of deregulation may=
=20
have discouraged new investment, since private companies did not know what=
=20
kind of law the state would pass. But restructuring ended that uncertainty=
=20
and companies saw an opportunity to make money from growing demand in=20
California. The new plants they are now building will likely assure that th=
e=20
current shortage will not persist.
The current policy debate over what to do about the shortage has focused on=
=20
providing more power plants as soon as possible. Gov. Davis created a "gree=
n=20
team" to streamline regulatory review of some projects, but the new process=
=20
applies to only two of the 13 projects undergoing review. Davis has also=20
proposed a state energy authority to build and operate new power plants, bu=
t=20
state ownership and construction will only speed up projects if the state=
=20
does not follow all permitting and environmental rules, the same result cou=
ld=20
be accomplished by waiving rules for private power generators and without=
=20
consuming tax revenues to pay for the plants.
But waiving the rules is not likely to be politically acceptable and may no=
t=20
even be wise. A better approach would be to change the regulatory approach=
=20
without changing standards. California regulators view their roles as=20
ensuring that standards are not violated=01*they don=01,t care if the power=
plant=20
gets built. Thus they make themselves like the troll under the bridge=01*no=
one=20
gets by without meeting their terms. State leaders could speed up the proce=
ss=20
of adding new power plants by changing the regulator=01,s mission so his go=
al is=20
to make sure that the power plant gets built without violating any standard=
s=01*
a subtle but important change in approach.
Indeed, speeding up the review process by taking a constructive approach to=
=20
solving problems as they arise, rather than just kicking the problem back t=
o=20
the developer, could improve the environmental quality of the state=01,s en=
ergy=20
supply. New generation plants are cleaner and more efficient than older one=
s=20
and will displace some of the dirtiest plants in a competitive market. With=
=20
the right approach, state policy makers can meld the incentives to invest=
=20
that supply constraints and market prices create with a more positive=20
approach to permitting and environmental reviews to speed up completion of=
=20
new plants, shortening the span of the state=01,s electricity shortage and=
=20
helping prevent future shortages
=====================================
|
4,359 |
Subject: FW: Article 2/Conf. Call - Sent on Behalf of Jeff Dodd
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28452.
=====================================
Mike , sue and Jeff, Can you please track this down ASAP and get an
assessment of this. Jeff, I assume you will get our lobbyists involved.
Lets schedule a call to discuss strategy, etc.
---------------------- Forwarded by Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES on 07/09/2001 03:10
PM ---------------------------
From: Barbara N Gray/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/09/2001 03:06 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Article 2/Conf. Call - Sent on Behalf of Jeff Dodd
Vicki, I continue to work with "industry groups" on the proposed revisions to
Article 2 of the UCC.....in connection therewith, I received the following
with respect to CALIFORNIA consumers relating to choice of law proposed
legislation being proposed in California. I am unsure what types of
transactions, if any EES pursues in CA, but am passing this on to you just in
case......a fate worse than death....to be within the clutches of left coast
consumer law!!!!!! Hope all is well with and family bng
-----Original Message-----
From: Kaye Caldwell <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Kaye+20Caldwell+20+3CKCaldwell-IA+40ix+2Enetcom+2Ecom+3E+40
[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:30 PM
To: SHADDIX, PEGGY; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
DODD, JEFF
Subject: Re: Article 2/Conf. Call - Sent on Behalf of Jeff Dodd
Those of you that are concerned about the changes to Article 1 (Change #6 in
Holly's memo) regarding choice of law might like to know about California AB
256, see text below. It makes all non-California choice of law clauses
ineffective in electronic contracts with California consumers, and we think
it may be expanded to all consumer contracts (due to E-SIGN issues). We have
a working group of people opposing the bill, which has passed the Assembly
and is in the Senate. THIS BILL IS QUITE LIKELY TO PASS. So if you're
concerned please help us stop it!
Among numerous other problems, I think it would force all companies that sell
goods to California consumers with an express warranty to provide local
repair facilities or contract for local repair services (ie, it overturns the
Zeos case).
If you want to participate in the opposition working group please let me
know. ([email protected].)
- Kaye Caldwell
================= Text of AB 256 ===========================
1799.207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a consumer in this
state enters a consumer contract or other transaction for the purchase or
lease of goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes and the consumer contract or other agreement documenting the
transaction is created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by
electronic means, all of the following apply: (a) The consumer contract or
transaction shall be governed by California law. (b) For the purpose of
applying the provisions of this part, the consumer contract or transaction
shall be deemed to have been made or to have occurred at the individual's
residence. (c) Any action arising from or connected with the consumer
contract or transaction that is commenced against the consumer shall be filed
in the county or judicial district in which the consumer resided at the time
the transaction was entered or resides at the time action is filed. (d) This
section may not be waived or varied by agreement. Any waiver of this section
is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
================= End of Text of AB 256 ===========================
===================================
Kaye Caldwell, California Policy Director
Internet Alliance http://www.internetalliance.org
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 486-6334, (202) 783-8677
Fax: (916) 313-3746, (202) 478-1804
===================================
=====================================
|
4,360 |
Subject: SDG&E Bundled Customer deDASR Justification
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4892.
=====================================
The following justification is intended to support potential deDASR decision
for SDG&E service territory accounts.
For Bundled Contracts (EES & EEMC), EES is responsible for managing all
components of the customers bundled bill except taxes. Such components
include energy and all UDC related charge components (CTC, post-transition
period CTC, transmission, distribution, nuclear decommissioning costs and
public purpose programs, i.e. the CA fully bundled bill). Enron has
leveraged its risk management skills to manage the risks associated with the
regulatory risk embedded within its retail contracts. The discount off
tariff product provides the Enron customer with certainty regarding the
magnitude and duration of savings derived from deregulation in California.
These contracts span the AB1890 transition period and typically brought
expected deregulation savings forward for the customer and levelized the
savings over the contract term. EES hedges its risk by buying Energy in the
same manner as the Utilities during the transition period and locking in
supply at fixed prices when customers are exposed to full spot market prices.
During the regulated AB1890 transition period, the utilities pay ESPs a PX
credit equal to the fully bundled tariff price minus the avoided cost of
energy procurement (the PX-credit). EES hedges the T&D, and CTC regulatory
risk though a variety of hedging activities including interest rate swaps,
development of bundled service index products, electric commodity and other
fuel related hedging activities and intervention in Utility regulatory
proceedings on behalf of our bundled service customer base. The ability to
source from the UDC is implicit within any contract that transfers the price
risk for all commodity and UDC-related (non-commodity) costs to Enron. In
February, 2001 Enron chose to resource its supply for its SCE and PG&E
locations from the host Utility. This resourcing decision was necessary as a
result of : a) PG&E/SCE non-compliance with the AB1890 tariffs (Rule 22), b)
the demise of the California PX and lack of a liquid hourly market necessary
to follow a retail customer load shape and c) to protect our retail customer
base against potential discriminatory treatment upon their return to Utility
Service upon expiration of their Enron retail energy service contract.
Current legislation is now pending that may again provide regulated bundled
service rates for SDG&E customers. This legislation has the potential to
provide for the discriminatory treatment of direct access service customers
upon their return to Utility default service at the expiration of their DA
contract term. Upon passage of such legislation, it is imperative that
bundled service and direct access customers continue to be treated in a
comparable manner. This was a fundamental principle of California
deregulation. The passage of such legislation, would result in the continued
need for SDG&E to calculate a PX credit associated with energy deliveries by
third party ESPs. Under AB1890, the credit is equal to the fully bundled
contract price minus the spot market value of the energy plus associated
delivery costs imposed on the Schedule Coordinator. The energy only portion
of the SDG&E customer bill has continued to be calculated and posted on the
SDG&E ESP website even after the suspension of the SDG&E rate freeze in July,
1999. New legislation with a fixed generation rate applicable to SDG&E
bundled service customers which allowed for collection of resulting UDC
undercollections in future time periods from all customers (including
existing DA customers who later return to UDC bundled service) essentially
constitutes a return to the AB1890 transition period mechanism for SDG&E.
Such legislation may also prevent the establishment of critical mass
necessary to support development of a liquid hourly market within California
necessary to follow a retail customers load shape without the existence of
the PX. In the event of such a reregulation rate freeze, AB1890 and the
existing SDG&E tariffs should also make SDG&E liable for such "PX-Credits" to
ESPs who have entering into bilateral Bundled Service contracts under the
AB1890. In the event that the rules, tariffs or legislation are modified to
no longer provide for such PX-credits, EES could preserve the commercial
practicality of its CA Bundled Service Contracts by resourcing its supply for
EES/EEMC customers located within SDG&E service territory directly from SDG&E.
=====================================
|
4,361 |
Subject: UC Summit Conference
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/695.
=====================================
Dear Jeff:
This message provides more information about sponsoring the UC Berkeley Nov.
13 deregulation summit and the two sponsorship levels. Three UC
institutions, the Goldman School of Public Policy, the Competition Policy
Center, and the Energy Institute, are jointly organizing the summit. To
cover the costs of the conference we need financial support.
Enron Sponsorship will support the balanced effort to review where we are in
terms of the deregulation of electricity, and where we should be going, and
also to disseminate the conference proceedings to a larger audience. With a
contribution of $10,000, Enron will be designated as a Major Sponsor. A
contribution of $5000 will designate Enron as a Sponsor. Contributions are
fully tax deductible and will be acknowledged in all printed materials
distributed to the press, the UC community, at the conference itself and in
all related internet materials.
Our first large mailing to over 2500 individuals is scheduled to go out next
week, and will include Sponsor acknowledgments. We will be very pleased to
have your Sponsorship be a part of this first mailing. With your support, we
will also be able to disseminate a summary of the conference proceedings to
a broad public audience who would appreciate an objective presentation of
issues raised by electricity deregulation and different viewpoints on them.
I hope this clarification is useful, and to hear from you shortly. I would
be happy to provide any further information you may desire or personally
answer your questions. In addition, our Special Projects Director, Heather
Cameron ([email protected], 510-642-9437), will be directly
responsible for all public relations, publicity and conference materials,
and can answer any questions about these. For reference, I have appended a
brief description of the conference below.
Best,
Lee
P. S. If you wish to purchase 10 tickets at $200 each (non-tax deductible)
and make a charitable contribution of $8,000, we will be happy to designate
you as a Major Conference Sponsor. Similarly, should you wish to purchase 5
conference tickets and make a charitable contribution of $4000, we will
designate you as a Conference Sponsor. You are very welcome to purchase as
many additional tickets as you wish.
The Summit Conference on Electricity: Deregulation, Reregulation, or What?
University of California's Goldman School of Public Policy, Competition
Policy Center, and Energy Institute are hosting an energy summit on policy
options to remedy problems with electricity de-regulation. The summit will
take place this November 13, from 12:30-6PM, on the UC Berkeley Clark Kerr
campus in Berkeley, CA.
The focus, and the audience, will be national but heavily informed and
influenced by the California crisis. The conference will evaluate at a high
level (1) the wisdom of deregulation and (2) how the many pitfalls
encountered so far can be avoided and remedied. The university will convene
an open, honest and reasoned exchange between high level decision-makers
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. Each speaker will
make a brief opening statement that identifies key issues, followed by panel
discussion and an audience Q&A period. We expect a live audience of about
200 people including a large press presence. One sponsor has tentatively
offered to provide streaming video services. We hope to have a balanced
group of sponsors from APPA to energy companies.
The speakers are being arranged at this time. We have confirmed positive
responses from Loretta Lynch's office (Chair, CPUC) and from PJM CEO Phil
Harris, and preliminary positive responses from Steven Littlechild
(England's primary electricity regulator) and Laura D'Andrea Tyson (Dean,
Haas School of Business and former Chair, President's Council of Economic
Advisors and National Economic Council. We are awaiting responses from U.S.
Represenatives Edward Markey and Joe Barton, and FERC Commissioner Bill
Massey. Former DOJ chief economist Carl Shapiro will be on one of the
panels, as will economist and UCEI head Severin Borenstein. We also expect
to have several speakers who are energy company CEOs, state legislators, and
consumer advocates.
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
e-mail: [email protected]
=====================================
|
4,362 |
Subject: CAMBRIDGE ENERGY CONFERENCE CALL ON CALIF./ FERC ISSUES
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1652.
=====================================
Cambridge Energy Research sees FERC's order as bold but still insufficient
to solve Calif's complex problems in electricity. FERC does show an
important change in direction to be more active. Calif. clearly has gone
wrong.
FERC did not confirm that market power exists though. FERC alone cannot
fix the fundamental supply/demand
imblance problem at the seat of Calif's power price spikes now. FERC
is taking a scattershot approach however
to remedies. Its creating more problems for Merchant generators
however. Cera sees FERC at the start of a series of changes to effect
the Calif. market for some time to come. Cambridge sees FERC's 5 main
thrusts:
1. FERC sees Calif. oversight of the ISO Board as ineffective. Too many
price caps changes inside one month, too many quick switches in policy.
This summer the ISO operators were actually doing the CPUCs job when the
ISO was operating to protect the core customers.
2. FERC stripped Calif ISO of price cap setting power..but setting
it at $150 mwh for a soft cap has problems too because its too low
(discourages new plants) and a hassle for those who want to offer above
it..not clear price signals.
3. Its good that now IOUs can buy/sell power outside the PX giving more
market options. But FERC won't mandate utilities to hedge, but indeed
they need to use more of these types of tools beyond the old spot market
addiction.
CPUC does not yet know what a good portfolio for power should look like.
4. FERC set market penalties for underscheduling and the new ISO board is
trying to break up the balkanized way
power used to be bought and sold by Calif utilities.
5. Calif. congestion management reform pace is too slow. Calif. needs
real nodal pricing.
Will the $150 soft cap retard new plants? Has a chilling effect because
there is no floor and the ceiling is low.
There are 61 GW proposed in the West now and 21 GW are needed.
Will CPUC introduce a capacity charge to promote new plants? Now the ISO
in its actions can enter into supply contracts for ' new ' capacity
for 3 years with a $125 kwh payment plus what it pays in the price to
clear the energy market. People will try to reclassifiy 'old' plants as
'new' plants to try to make the cut.
Will it make more sense for plants to be outside Calif. to compete ?
It makes things less onerous on the regulataory front to site outside
Calif. then inside. The areas outside Calif. see Calif. effects
changing their own markets.
FERC saw links with power price caps and efforts to move power from
COB to Palo Verde. If you move volumes
away from the day ahead market more into bilaterals this will weaken the
price cap effects. We should not forget that it was due to PURPA high
priced power under long term contracts that Calif. got themselves into
many of these problems in the first place.
CPUC wants to create managed competition and tinker between new and old
capacity and these intrusions blue the market signals.
Why are prices still so high in this shoulder season? Generation
shortfall is the real reason. Plus Gas prices are high and its the marginal
fuel, nuclear outages still exist and seasonal hydro is low and NOX
emissions ($45 pound) costs for clean up add to price pressure.
Calif. demand for power grew 3 percent per year and supply grew 1
percent per year so shortage was inevitable. CPUC never saw it. It
is still not clear these new FERC remedies will fix this gap.
Transmission constraints contribute to the supply crisis but the
generation shortfall is bigger problem. Low cap is of concern, even if it
is a soft cap. At PJM the cap is $1000 and they can exceed their
cap in PJM.
In Calif there is a case where the stranded costs worked off fast, and
incentives to add new plants were missing as power prices were low until
demand exceed supply . Calif is a market in short supply and next summer
the problems will still be here.
If the older plants now have higher costs due to NOX and heat rates, this
should signal new plants to come forward and run more and get better
margins, esp in So. Calif. But in the future the new gas on gas
competition plants will find it harder t o compete and these plants will
need 20 years or so to pay out..so the risk to thin margins is real for
merchant plant developers.
=====================================
|
4,363 |
Subject: PROVANTAGE - The Original Advantage #e010902
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9091.
=====================================
[IMAGE]
February 13, 2001
Can't read this email? Click here
Issue#: e010902
Subscription Address: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the?
Original Advantage Click here
(Do Not Reply to this email)
PROVANTAGE - The Original Advantage
?
Products that give you the Professional Advantage!
[IMAGE]
Seagate Crystal Reports 8 Developer Edition
By Seagate Software
Seagate Crystal Reports 8 is a comprehensive Web and Windows reporting
solution that lets you access, analyze, report and share data. The Developer
Edition ...More
??$329.05
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
OmniView Pro 8-Port KVM Switch
By Belkin
The OmniView PRO 8 Port Keyboard, Video and Mouse (KVM) Switch gives you
central control over eight PS/2 or AT-style computers with advanced features
that ...More
??$335.59
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
CPD-E210 Multiscan 17in FD Trinitron 1600x1200
By Sony
The virtually flat, high-resolution FD Trinitron CRT combined with a variable
0.24-0.25mm aperture grille pitch, and precise, convenient on-screen digital
...More
??$319.98
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
DeskJet 840C Printer
By Hewlett Packard
HP's most affordable personal DeskJet printer with brilliant photo quality.
The HP DeskJet 840C printer with HP's exclusive PhotoREt II color layering
...More
??$99.98
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Increase Your Memory!
SIMMS, DIMMS and the like - we've got them all!
[IMAGE]
Backup Exec Desktop Pro v4.5
By Veritas
VERITAS Backup Exec Desktop Pro is the ideal solution for small business and
corporate computer users who have advanced knowledge of data protection and
...More
??$80.75
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Back-UPS Pro 650-650VA Line Int LAN 5 Min-Full 14
By APC
Power problems wreak havoc on today's multitasking networked or stand-alone
PCs. The more you do with your PC, the more you stand to lose. An APC
Back-UPS ...More
??$241.48
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Cable/DSL Internet Gateway
By D-Link Systems - Routers
Exclusive Special Pricing through PROVANTAGE! Save $20 on the purchase of
the DI-701 (expires 2/28/01)
??$79.97
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Drive Image v4.0
By PowerQuest
Allows you to quickly and easily clone precious hard disk data. With the
click of a button, you can backup, restore, or upgrade your hard disk.
Step-by-step ...More
??$57.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Caviar 40.0GB EIDE 7200RPM Ultra-ATA/100
By Western Digital
The award-winning WD Caviar family provides the best combination of
performance, reliability and value for today's entry-level and mainstream
desktop systems.
??$157.98
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Consumables
Do you need toner, inkjet cardtridges or photo paper? PROVANTAGE carries a
complete line of consumables to keep you stocked. Click on the link above to
view our complete listing!
[IMAGE]
U.S. Robotics 56K Faxmodem External
By 3Com
The World Wide Web offers businesses and families a range of resources no one
could imagine only a few years ago. But to see the detailed graphics and ...
More
??$108.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Dreamweaver UltraDev v4.0/Fireworks v4.0
By Macromedia
Designed specifically for building data-driven Web sites, Macromedia
Dreamweaver UltraDev 4 enables you to construct ASP, JSP or ColdFusion
applications ...More
??$618.25
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Norton SystemWorks 2001 v4.0 PRO for Windows 9x/Me
By Symantec
$30 ($45 CDN) mfg rebate on SYMO01F (single user pkg) for owners of ANY
retail (boxed or downloaded), standalone versions of Norton SystemWorks, ...
More
??$92.73
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
ZIP 250MB USB Powered Ext Drive
By Iomega
No external power supply needed! Power is received through the USB cable.
??$161.34
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
USB Devices
Expand your collection of USB peripherals! Start with a USB hub!
?
?
Web Address: www.PROVANTAGE.com?
?Toll Free: 800-336-1166???? Fax: 330-494-5260???? email:
[email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | FREE Catalog
,2001 PROVANTAGE Corporation, 7249 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720
Products, prices, terms, conditions, or offers may change at any time.
Company and/or product names are generally trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective companies. Some promotional text may be
copyrighted by the product's manufacturer.?
?
BizRate Customer Certified (GOLD) Site
=====================================
|
4,364 |
Subject: FYI - one aspect of ECI
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/eci/125.
=====================================
Interactive Week 11/1/99
Wall Street enthusiasm and a growing list of brand-name clients have
legitimized content distribution as a business, putting two
companies that started it all - Akamai Technologies and Sandpiper Networks -
into the spotlight.
Digital Island's $630 million acquisition of Sandpiper last week and
Akamai's $2.2 billion pre-initial public offering valuation are likely
to make merger and acquisition artists wonder how much their company would
be worth with the inclusion of a Sandpiper or
Akamai. Akamai, which priced it shares at $26, saw its stock hit $125.50 in
midday trading Oct. 29.
Digital Island, the San Francisco-based Web hosting shop that was worth $1.2
billion on Oct. 25 when it announced the Sandpiper
acquisition, saw its market capitalization gain $1 billion in the course of
four days.
Why are the services of Akamai and Sandpiper so valuable all of a sudden?
The Internet can't deliver Web - much less broadband -
content fast enough, and network backbone companies are taking too long to
solve the bottleneck puzzle, industry experts said.
"We looked at content sites A through Z, and 52 percent of them are planning
to buy content delivery services next year," said Greg
Howard, principal analyst and owner of the HTRC Group, a market research
company.
With customers that eager to show service providers the money, many are
scrambling to deliver.
In a space where a year ago Sandpiper was a lone evangelist and Akamai a
rocket from nowhere, new content distributors are
popping up like mushrooms.
Adero, Edgix and Mirror Image are three companies that are gaining mindshare
in the market. Since at the core of a content
distribution system lies a massive task managing hundreds and eventually
thousands of caches operated as one network, such
companies as iBeam Broadcasting and SkyCache are also gaining credibility in
the market.
And then there are a few sudden entrants. Enron Communications and Exodus
Communications are trying to amend existing
business models to take advantage of the new opportunity.
How big is the opportunity? The content distribution market, Howard said,
will grow from $62 million this year to $306 million next
year, and to about $2.3 billion in 2002.
Acquisition as an exit strategy is certainly something new content
distributors are thinking about.
"I think it's hard to say what will happen in this industry next. All
business models are very different," said Rangu Salgame, president
and chief executive of Edgix. "I think we will stand independent - for a
while."
Potential buyers include any given content provider - from CNN Interactive
to Pets.com - that writes three checks every month: one
for bandwidth, one for Web hosting and, lately, one for content
distribution. These groups have the most to gain from content
delivery services, executives said.
"There are a couple of likely players in this space. One, there are new
start-ups like Adero and specialized content distributors like
Intervu; two, there are colocation providers like Exodus; and three, there
are traditional telcos like MCI WorldCom, who are
standing on the sidelines right now, but have a lot of edges for content to
reside on," said Leo Spiegel, president and CEO of
Sandpiper, soon to be Digital Island.
What would happen if any given company were to buy all three components?
"This would mean running content distribution through a single network and
maintaining a global footprint," Howard said. "It is hard,
but doable."
There are reasons why the network-content distributor combination could
backfire. Akamai executives declined interviews for this
story due to the Securities and Exchange Commission-imposed quiet period.
But in the past, they have been vocal about a single
network scenario being untenable for content distribution because their
business model is predicated on carrier neutrality. This is why
Internet service providers and telephone companies are open to content
distributors colocating servers within their networks.
Another possible exit strategy for content distributors is to sell out to
large media companies such as America Online, Disney and
Time Warner. These companies could maintain the content distributors'
"Switzerland" status and still use the service as a competitive
advantage by speeding up content delivery, industry watchers said.
Scott Bolton
Government and Regulatory Affairs
Enron Communications, Inc
210 SW Morrison, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
503.464.8611
503.464.3636 fax
=====================================
|
4,365 |
Subject: CPUC special session 6/7/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2692.
=====================================
Jeff,
Are you planning on being at the CPUC on Thursday?
Expanding SoCal Supply, Transport on CPUC Agenda
California regulators this week could start to remove some of the uncertainty
surrounding the in-state markets in the first of a series of natural gas
infrastructure decisions that ultimately could greatly expand the two major
utility intrastate transmission/storage systems.
When the California Public Utilities Commission meets in a special
continuation business session Thursday, it will consider allowing Southern
California Gas Co. to free up about 24 Bcf of cushion gas at its idle
Montebello Underground Storage Facility slated to eventually be abandoned.
However, a bigger move by the CPUC would be to act on the long-stalled
comprehensive settlement to open up the SoCal's intrastate transmission and
storage system.
The CPUC held an en banc information hearing for its five commissioners
earlier in May to hear arguments for and against the settlement. Indications
are the commissioners are ready to move, but it would still take several
months of processing before a comprehensive settlement could be okayed by the
state regulators.
"It appears to be back on (the CPUC's) radar screen and we're still hopeful
that they will do the right thing," said Lad Lorenz, gas operations director
at SoCalGas. "They are apparently taking a fresh look at the whole thing, but
they haven't given any indication when they might act."
SoCalGas has been criticized by a coalition of Southern California generators
for having little incentive to expand its pipeline capacity because of
current rules that allow it to re-sell supply and related services in a tight
market. Added pipeline capacity could hurt SoCal's storage business, some
critics charge.
"The uncertainty of what the ultimate regulatory structure is going to be on
a going-forward basis is causing everyone in the market, including us,
concern, making it difficult to make decisions," said Lorenz, noting that
SoCal since last August has had a proposed global settlement before the
regulators.
Part of the provisions of the overall settlement, Lorenz said, would make it
easier for determining when system expansions are necessary because it is
based on customer commitments and contracts for capacity on the system.
"Absent that, we're in the current regulatory system and we build the system
based on consumer needs," he said. "We've always done that, and we haven't
had any curtailments in 10 years now." (He added that SoCal doesn't expect
shortages when things get tight this summer.)
Under the current scheme, however, SoCal determines new construction on a
least-cost basis and then tries to recover the costs in the next rate case.
Another problem with the current design is that SoCal cannot sign up
customers for firm backbone transmission with guaranteed receipt and delivery
points.
The proposed settlement would allow SoCal to hold open seasons for specific
points to determine customer interest. Customers could either commit to new
capacity on an incremental cost basis or SoCal could seek rolled-in rates for
expansion projects. This is the system the state's other major gas utility,
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has in place.
Despite the rigors of the bankruptcy court, the PG&E utility has scheduled an
open season for expansion of its backbone and storage system in a proposal it
intends to make to the CPUC later in June (see Daily GPI, May 31
<http://intelligencepress.com/subscribers/daily/news/d20010531i.html>).
While its pipe and storage infrastructures are thought to be "adequate" for
this year, the PG&E utility is expecting continued high load factors and
prices over the summer and winter periods.
Of concern to both utilities is the current interest among elected officials
and regulators to increase reserve margins to the double-digit levels. Their
question is who is going to pay for maintaining the excess capacity; the same
question applies to the electric side, too.
In implementing current plans to add 375 MMcf/d of pipeline capacity,
SoCalGas would increase its overall capacity to about 3.9 Bcf/d. "Our
indications are that is going to be more than adequate and will add
substantial excess capacity," SoCal's Lorenz said (see Daily GPI, May 29
<http://intelligencepress.com/subscribers/daily/news/d20010529e.html>).
The existing expansions now before the CPUC but not part of the global
settlement struck last year would be re-evaluated in light of the settlement
should it be adopted in the next two or three months, Lorenz said.
=====================================
|
4,366 |
Subject: The Original Advantage #e12405
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2826.
=====================================
[IMAGE]
May 29, 2001
Can't read this email? Click here
Issue#: e12405
PROVANTAGE Customer: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the?
Original Advantage Click here
(Do Not Reply to this email)
Products that give you the Professional Advantage!
[IMAGE]
New!
Office XP for Windows
By Microsoft
SHIPPING MAY 31, 2001!
Standard Edition
Professional Edition
Developer Edition
The best way to order Microsoft Office XP is through a Microsoft Open
License. Click here.
[IMAGE]
New!
S800 Color BubbleJet Printer
By Canon
Whether you're a professional photographer or simply someone who appreciates
photo-quality output, the S800 Color Bubble Jet Photo Printer is the desktop
...More
??$288.87
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
RT314 DSL & Cable Modem Router
By NETGEAR
NETGEAR's RT314 combination switch and router creates the potent full-duplex
back bone you need to fire up your system. Share data locally or through the
...More
??$113.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New Version!
Delphi v6.0 Professional
By Borland
High productivity development for Windows
Enter new markets and increase your return on investment. Combine Delphi with
Kylix to use ...More
UPGRADE - NEW VERSION!!!!!??$384.28
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New Version!
PowerBuilder Enterprise v8.0 for Windows
By Sybase
PowerBuilder 8 is the easy-to-use, scalable, and proven rapid application
development environment that provides a cost-effective migration path to
next-generation ...More
??$2463.18
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New!
RoboInfo Enterprise
By eHelp Corporation
Introducing RoboInfo Enterprise, policies and procedures publishing software
that increases employee productivity while automatically detecting what
employees ...More
??$1586.85
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
eBookMan EBM-900 Multi-Media & Content Player 8MB
By Franklin
Download books to read or listen to audio books - thousands of titles
available now
Large display for a great reading experience
Download and ...More
??$129.99
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
DocuPrint M750 Color Inkjet 1200x1200dpi
By Xerox/Tektronix
Key Features and Benefits:
Photo-quality Color
True-to-life for business or home applications
Crisp laser-like black text ...More
??$93.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
OfficeConnect 56K LAN Modem
By U.S. Robotics
Unconstrained by the computer's serial port, the OfficeConnect 56K LAN modem
uses a 3Com Ethernet interface and data compression to reduce transfer time
...More
??$184.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
CanoScan D660U Flatbed Scanner
By Canon
Lift the cover, insert your slide or negative and press the external film
scan button. The D660U scanner, with its built-in backlight, produces
spectacular ...More
??$121.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Cakewalk Home Studio 9
By Cakewalk Music Software
Cakewalk Home Studio is the fastest, easiest, and most afforable way to
create music and sound on a PC.
You can get started fast with online tutorials. ...More
??$73.25
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
ORiNOCO AP-1000 Wireless Access Point
By Lucent Technologies
ORiNOCO AP-1000 Access Point is the wireless access point for the 802.11b
(Wi-Fi) compliant 11 Mbit/s ORiNOCO Enterprise Solution. ORiNOCO AP-1000
extends ...More
??$658.95
[IMAGE]
?
?
Web Address: www.PROVANTAGE.com?
?Toll Free: 800-336-1166???? Fax: 330-494-5260???? email:
[email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | FREE Catalog
,2001 PROVANTAGE Corporation, 7249 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720
Products, prices, terms, conditions, or offers may change at any time.
Company and/or product names are generally trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective companies. Some promotional text may be
copyrighted by the product's manufacturer.?
The Original Advantage promotional email is delivered only to customers of
PROVANTAGE Corporation. PROVANTAGE customers have purchased products in the
past and submitted their email address as part of the checkout process. Or,
customers have entered their name in the "Add to Email List" box on the
PROVANTAGE.com home page. Any customer may unsubscribe from the list at any
time by going to http://www.provantage.com/unsubscribe.htm. The email address
is permanently removed from additional promotional electronic mailings, and
will not be reactivated unless requested by the customer.??
[IMAGE]
BizRate Customer Certified (GOLD) Site
=====================================
|
4,367 |
Subject: Re: Global Case
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/1135.
=====================================
Thanks. I'll soften the expropriation language. I don't think they can
disclose the $1 million on the product liability case, since the entire
package appears to be one negotation, all the pieces of which likely have to
be agreed to, or no settlement. But you're point's well taken and I'll try
to acount for it in the answer. Finally, I can't see disclosing the fact
that I'm infringing on someone's patent in my annual report. Seems like I'd
have a hard time defending myself in court if they sued me, if I'd admitted
it to it in my annual report.
If I don't see you tomorrow, have a good week.
Christine Piesco <[email protected]>
11/26/2000 05:10 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Global Case
Jeff,
Sorry, I didn't realize we were attacking this one early over the holiday,
and I was out of town
until this afternoon. My conclusions differed from the attached write up on a
few points, but I am
not certain my thinking is the correct way. Here goes:
On the expropriation:
In the write up we say "We agree with the executive that Global should report
the expropriation
contingency in its 1994 report since both conditions included in FASB #5 were
met: 1) sufficient
information to assess that a loss is probable and 2) the loss could be
reasonably estimated.
Matuto took power in 1994 and it was known that he would nationalize major
industries. "
The book says "The imminence of an expropriation may be indicated by a public
or private
declaration of intent by a government to expropriate assess of the enterprise
or actual
expropriation of assets of other enterpises." I would argue that Matuto was
not the government and
therefore unable to enforce these assertions when he was running for office.
It also says FASB 5
requires the two accrual criteria to be met.
As I understand it, the government took over sometime last year and
nationalization of resources
was part of their platform. However, the announcement occured in mid-Feb 1995
that the government
intends to nationalize the mining industry. Also, the taking over of the
telephone company took
place in January. Since both of these events happened in 1995, I would think
they should not accrue
in 1994 because the asset was not actually impaired in 1994, in fact the
asset was fully functional
and operational for the entire financial reporting period. I believe they
should disclose that the
possibility of expropriation exists in 1994, but I think they should not
accrue..
I disagree that the company should cease use of the patent infringing
technology, I believe that
companies frequently make conscious business decisions to infringe upon
patents. Since I agree that
an accrual is not in order, perhaps a general disclosure regarding patent
litigation should be
made.
The book states that "If there are several aspects of litigation, each of
which gives rise to a
possible claim, then the accrual criteria should be applied to each possible
claim...."
Thus I think we should break up the product liability suit into pieces.
They've agreed to pay 1M
for lost rentals. This should clearly be accrued, assuming it hasn't been
paid yet. The tenants
claims are expected to be settled for 1M, this too should be accrued. The
surrounding property
claims are not estimable, and therefore should be handled with a disclosure.
Christine
[email protected] wrote:
> OK folks, here it is. Sorry for the delay, but those pesky questions ended
> up being more detailed than I anticipated. Please take a quick look and
> let me know if there are any comments---more ambiguities than usual in this
> one. I'll await comments and finalize this evening.
>
> Jimmie/Dylan--my apologies, but last Wednesday evening, I found out that I
> have to be in LA for a meeting tomorrow. If I make it to class at all
> tomorrow, I won't get there until after the break. Could one of you print
> out the case and bring it to class? If not, don' t sweat it, I'll email
> him an electronic and turn in a hard copy to him on Tuesday. Sorry for any
> hassle.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
> (See attached file: Case 26-1 Global Industries.doc)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Case 26-1 Global
Industries.doc
> Case 26-1 Global Industries.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded with
message
- christine.piesco.vcf
=====================================
|
4,368 |
Subject: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARING RE BASELINE ALLOWANCES FOR RESIDENTIAL
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27969.
=====================================
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE=01,S RULING
SETTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS
AND REQUIRING CUSTOMER NOTICE
The Commission has stated that the purpose of this proceeding is =018to
determine whether current baseline allowances for residential gas and
electricity users in California should be revised, and if so, to what new
levels.=018 (Order Instituting Rulemaking, May 24, 2001, p. 1.) As part o=
f
this proceeding, we are scheduling Public Participation Hearings. At the
Public Participation Hearings, interested members of the public may make
their views known to the Commission on the issues to be addressed in this
proceeding. Public Participation Hearings in this proceeding are set for
the following dates and locations.
Sept. 20, 2001 San Jose
7:00 p.m. Double Tree Hotel
2050 Gateway Place
San Jose, CA
While this proceeding has been split into two phases, comments at the Publi=
c
Participation Hearings may address issues to be examined in either phase.
Issues currently identified as being addressed in Phase I are: 1) Updating
the energy usage data used by the Commission in calculating baseline
quantities; 2) The appropriate percentage of energy usage to use in
calculating baseline quantities, within the legally permissible range; 3)
Possible changes to the medical baseline allowance; and 4) Suggestions for
legislative changes. Issues within the scope of the proceeding not
addressed in Phase I will be addressed in Phase II, and may include
consideration of the priorities and policy objectives of the baseline
program, possible changes to climate zones, consideration of household and
demographic characteristics, definition of seasons, and gas versus electric
issues. Other issues reasonably within the scope of the proceeding may als=
o
be addressed at the Public Participation Hearings.
In a previous Ruling respondent utilities were directed to coordinate with
the Commission=01,s Public Advisor=01,s Office regarding the preparation an=
d
content of bill inserts providing notice of these Public Participation
Hearings. Respondent utilities should incorporate the above information,
and continue to coordinate with the Commission=01,s Public Advisor=01,s Off=
ice.
All respondent utilities are required to provide timely notice to their
customers of the Public Participation Hearings. Each respondent utility
shall send written notices, in a form approved by the Public Advisor=01,s
Office, either by mailing them postage prepaid directly to customers, or by
including notices with customers=01, regular bills. To the extent any util=
ity
bills its customers electronically via the Internet, notice to those
customers may also be done electronically.
Anyone who needs assistance with participation in this proceeding should
make use of the resources on the Commission=01,s web site, www.cpuc.ca.gov,=
or
should contact our Public Advisor=01,s Office, which is available to help
parties understand how to participate in a proceeding, how to file a
pleading, and to answer other questions about Commission procedure. The
northern California office can be reached at 415-703-2074 or
[email protected]. The southern California office can be reached
at 213-576- 7055 or [email protected].
IT IS RULED that:
1. Public Participation Hearings will be held on the dates and at the
locations and times described above.
2. Each respondent utility will provide a company representative at each of
the Public Participation Hearings in, or within 125 miles of, its service
territory, to be available to address any comments or concerns expressed by
attendees.
3. Each respondent utility will provide notice to its customers not later
than 10 days prior to the earliest Public Participation Hearing in, or
within 125 miles of, its service territory. Notices shall be provided
either as an insert with a regular bill or may be mailed separately if
necessary to reach customers at least 10 days before the relevant Public
Participation Hearing.
4. Each respondent utility will provide to the Public Advisor=01,s Office n=
ot
later than five days prior to the relevant Public Participation Hearings, a
letter certifying that it has complied with the requirement of Ruling
Paragraph 3 above. The compliance letter shall state the date(s) notices
were sent to customers and the approximate number of customers so notified,
and attaching one copy of the actual notice used.
5. Any party that desires expedited or daily transcripts should advise the
Chief Hearing Reporter by telephone at (415) 703-2288 no later than three
days prior to the first day of hearings.
=====================================
|
4,369 |
Subject: More on FERC generator hearings
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/903.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/09/2001 06:07 PM -----
"Delaney Hunter" <[email protected]> 07/09/2001 06:08 PM Please respond to dhunter To: "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)" <[email protected]> cc: Subject: More on FERC generator hearings
-----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.
******************************************************************
=====================================
|
4,370 |
Subject: Fwd: Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]', 'Andrea Settanni', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3599.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:49:32 -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: Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices In CA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
FYI
Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices In CA
In what some observers believe could be a watershed change in rhetoric,
Senate energy policy leader Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is berating the capital
community for not coming forward and detailing what kind of ceiling on
wholesale power prices it would take to insure adequate generation -- but
head off continued economic damage to the state of California.
The criticism signals that the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee has grown impatient with the hail of philosophical
charges and counter-charges that have followed FERC's April 26 order on the
California market and is turning elsewhere than FERC for a solution. Sources
also say it may be a signal that there is a majority on his committee that
would support some kind of legislative control on the wholesale power market
in the West.
"I am issuing an admonition to the financial community," Murkowski said at
the conclusion of a hearing on the recent FERC order. "If the financial
community will come in and say what terms and conditions they will need to
bring new generation into the state, we can cut through this chatter."
Among other provisions, the FERC order institutes a plan for price controls
during Stage 1 and higher power emergencies. Lawmakers at the hearing,
especially from California and the West, criticized the action as
insufficient to prevent price gouging.
FERC Chairman Curt Hebert said the limited nature of the price controls will
continue to provide the power industry with incentives to build power plants
in California.
Murkowski called on financial interests attending the hearing to settle the
debate.
"Tells us what you will or will not do under a price cap," said Murkowski.
Murkowski indicated that the answer to his question should come directly from
top figures in the financial community.
Murkowski also signaled that Congress may step in and take legislative action
on the California crisis.
"We have to question the adequacy of the order and introduce legislation to
address problems if necessary," Murkowski said.
The sentiment was echoed by other members of the Committee.
"We cannot allow our government to sit idly by and allow a tragically flawed
and easily manipulated power market wreak havoc on our economy," Sen. Maria
Cantwell told Hebert. "If you're not going to take action, Congress is going
to act."
All three FERC commissioners testified at the hearing but it was Chairman
Curt Hebert who was on the receiving end of most of the criticism.
"FERC has done a wonderful imitation of a potted plant," Sen. Byron Dorgan
(D-ND) told Hebert. "Regulation is not a four letter word. The market system
sometimes gets out of wack.
Commissioner William Massey also criticized FERC's order, and acted as
counterpoint to Hebert throughout the hearing. Commissioner Linda Breathitt
defended her support of the April 26 order.
"One thing is clear, you all don't get along very well," observed Dorgan.
"I'm amazed at what's been done," said Murkowski in defending FERC's action
over the past several weeks. "It's better than nothing."
"I've been disappointed," replied Dorgan. "I hope FERC decides it's a
regulatory body and steps up and takes some action."
Sen. Feinstein suggested to Hebert that FERC take a closer look at the impact
of skyrocketing natural gas prices on the exorbitant increase in electricity
prices in California.
In response, Hebert announced that FERC was holding a technical conference
May 24 on current and projected natural gas pipelines into California.
"I agree that this is a natural gas situation and we intend to look into this
as well," Hebert said.
Source: EnergyWashington.com
Date: May 4, 2001
, Inside Washington Publishers
=====================================
|
4,371 |
Subject: UCLA Press Release on Economic Forecast of California Economy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3987.
=====================================
April 4 , 2001
Interested in subscribing to the Forecast?
?
UCLA FORECASTERS SEE NATIONAL RECESSION AS INEVITABLE IN 2001; CALIFORNIA
WILL NOT BE IMMUNE, WITH BAY AREA VERY SUSCEPTIBLE
?
LOS ANGELES --Economists with the UCLA Anderson Business Forecast see even
more clear indicators of a recession for the nation in 2001 and project a 90
percent chance that the nation's longest economic expansion will come to an
end no later than the first quarter of 2002.
"The year 2001 is a transition year that will take the U.S. economy from the
Internet Rush of 1996-2000 to a lower level of sustainable economic growth in
2002," said Edward Leamer, UCLA Anderson Business Forecast director and
Anderson School professor. However, getting from here to there will involve
some painful adjustments, he warns, and "monetary medicine" from the Fed
won't stop the pain this time.
According to the econometric model used by UCLA's forecasters, the
probability of a 2001 recession has increased nearly 30 percent since
December 2000. Just three months ago, Dr. Leamer's forewarning of a recession
was the most pessimistic -- and, as it turns out, the most accurate forecast
made that quarter.
"The expansion of 1999-2000 was driven by 'New Economy' investment
opportunities. Firms rushed pell-mell to be the first kid on the block to
have a cool website. Fear was a big motivator. Internet firms feared losing
first-mover advantage. Bricks-and-mortar firms feared they would lose out to
pure Internet business models. Almost every enterprise in the U.S. invested
heavily in IT equipment and software, and hired the associated personnel,"
said Dr. Leamer. "Things are different now."
The national recession and slowdown in investment in information technology
and software has different implications for the principal regions of
California. A recession is quite likely for the Bay Area, while Southern
California will experience many economic stresses though skirting an outright
recession.
Dr. Tom Lieser, author of the California Forecast, expects to see a
"high-tech" recession in California that will have a disproportionate impact
on the San Francisco Bay Area. "We will most likely see not only a slowing of
demand for electronics, communications equipment and related products, but
also a weeding out of the less well-capitalized firms in these industries,"
said Dr. Lieser.
The UCLA economist also expects a weak expansion in employment through 2002,
with a corresponding rise in unemployment rates. A substantial slowdown in
the California service sector -- a mainstay of the state's economic growth --
is also quite likely.
"The strong increase in residential building permits seen during the
November-January period will likely be short-lived," said Dr. Lieser. "We
expect to see declining home prices in the Bay Area this year. Southern
California will also experience slower home sales and a lower rate of price
increases."
Higher energy prices, the economists argue, may pose a greater problem for
other states than for California, because of the state's lower per capita
consumption. On a per capita basis, California ranked 49th out of 50 in
electricity consumption and 26th in natural gas consumption, both in 1999.
Even with the state's notorious dependence on the automobile, it still ranks
only 15th out of the 47 reporting states in per capita gasoline consumption.
And while the recent brownouts and blackouts may not perceptibly affect
California incomes and employment in the short term, a prolonged electricity
crisis could discourage business expansion significantly in the longer run.
The UCLA Anderson Business Forecast is the most widely followed and
often-cited forecast for the state of California, and was unique in
predicting both the seriousness of the early-1990s downturn in California and
Southern California, and the strength of the state economy's rebound since
1993.
The Forecast was presented at an all-day conference at Korn Convocation Hall
at The Anderson School at UCLA. In addition to providing the outlook for the
state and national economy, the conference examined the economic impact of
California's energy crisis through a series of panels led by some of the
nation's most prominent authorities. Speakers included Loretta Lynch,
president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Mark Bernstein,
senior policy analyst at RAND Corporation, Barry Sedlik, manager, economic
and business development, Southern California Edison, and Joseph M. Otting,
executive vice president, Union Bank of California.
=====================================
|
4,372 |
Subject: FCC Meeting and Dockets
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11891.
=====================================
EBS Government Affairs wanted to give you an update on our meeting at the
FCC last Thursday, April 26. Also contained is a brief discussion of
current FCC proceedings, what we are doing to be better informed and some
suggested actions.
Sue Nord, Stephen Burns (DC Office), Lara Leibman and I met with the
following people from the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC:
Jane Jackson, Chief, Competitive Pricing Division
Rich Lerner, Deputy Chief, Competitive Pricing Division
Jay Atkinson, Chief Economists, Common Carrier Bureau
Tom Beers, Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis Division
Michelle Carey, Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division
Tim Peterson, Deputy Chief, Accounting Safeguards Division
The purpose of the meeting was to do an introduction of EBS and explain our
overall business strategy, to establish a point of contact with the various
divisions of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau, and to solicit some information
relative to the pending proceedings at the FCC. The biggest take-away from
the meeting was that we impressed upon them the effect the issues before
them (EELs, Access to High Capacity Circuits) will have on carriers
entering the market who want to provide high-speed data and content
services to large customers, as well as to the development of a bandwidth
trading environment.
Because of the appointment of the new chairman, Powell, and the pending
appointments of three new commissioners, the division heads were very
uncertain about policy direction at the FCC in the near term.
They seemed interested in Enron as different than most carriers. They
suggested that we pursue filing ex-parte written comments in the EELs
proceeding specifically addressing how the usage restrictions on EELs would
affect Enron's ability to provide the referenced services. We will be
developing a draft of the EELs ex-parte communication this week. They also
informed us of an EELs Task Force at the FCC, with whom we will make
contact within the week to arrange a meeting. They didn't seem to
discourage us from requesting the elimination of the usage restrictions,
although they did indicate that Powell favors the usage restrictions. With
that, we should regard the elimination of usage restrictions as a
long-shot.
In addition to EELs, there are other FCC proceedings about which we are
gathering information. They include the ILEC's (Bell South, Verizon and
SBC) petition to remove high capacity circuits as UNEs, a collocation
proceeding and a new intercarrier compensation proceeding.
The ILEC petition for a declaratory ruling by the FCC that high-capacity
circuits (loop and transport) are no longer required to be provided as UNEs
is pending. There has been a motion to dismiss filed, but we haven't
obtained a copy as of yet. There is an opportunity to file comments by
June 10. We will be doing some background on whether we will want to file
in conjunction with other groups or singularly. We will definitely be
soliciting your feedback on the substance of the comments. We will keep
you informed of important developments.
There is an open collocation proceeding. We were told at the meeting that
there is still an opportunity to file comments. This proceeding will
address CLEC cross-connections within the central office, types of
equipment that can be collocated within the CO, and varieties of
collocation that must be offered (i.e. caged, cageless, virtural, etc.).
We will have to examine the importance of this case relative to the outcome
of the EEL proceeding and our current analysis of special access versus
UNEs.
On Friday, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) dealing
with intercarrier compensation. This will deal with the compensation that
ILECs and CLECs pay to one another to terminate local voice traffic on the
other's network. It will also address the access charges that local
carriers (ILECs and CLECs) charge long-distance providers to terminate
long-distance traffic. It is possible that special access pricing may also
be at issue. The focus may be the disparity in pricing between UNEs and
special access service. If the usage restrictions on EELs are removed, I
would think that the importance of addressing pricing disparities between
special access and UNEs will be elevated. We will monitor this proceeding
for opportunities to weigh in as well.
Finally, we expect the Industry Analysis Division to come out with report
about the penetration of internet access in the US. This may be of
interest, but may not require any involvement.
If you have any questions or comments on this memo, feel free to contact
me.
=====================================
|
4,373 |
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: California Utility Woes Attract
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/737.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 09/29/2000 05:46 PM
-----
[email protected]
09/27/2000 02:30 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: California Utility Woes Attract
National Attention
California Utility Woes Attract National Attention
UTILITY BUSINESS STAFF
?
09/30/2000
Utility Business
Copyright 2000 by Intertec Publishing Corporation, a PRIMEDIA Company. All
rights reserved.
California is fast becoming the symbol for problems that can develop when the
electric utility industry is deregulated.
Since becoming the first state to deregulate its retail market, California
has had several power shortages this summer in which consumers were hit with
skyrocketing electric rates. In San Diego, rates doubled and even quadrupled
in the last two months. There's so much public backlash that members of
Congress from California will hold hearings this month to examine the
problem.
Trade groups that represent the utility companies and public power
organizations say deregulation is not at fault, but rather the specific way
in which California opened its markets without accounting for supply and
demand. They say there's not enough power generation to meet demand.
The state hasn't built any power plants for at least 10 years, in large part
because of the resistance utilities face from environmentalists concerned
about siting locations.
The National Energy Marketers Association, which represents wholesale and
retail energy marketers, warned that suggestions about placing price caps for
wholesale power markets would backfire. Instead, the group says Congress and
states should eliminate regulations that harm competition in wholesale and
retail power markets.
The group says the problem has been exacerbated by policies that increase the
risk to build new power plants and a lack of uniformity for operating
procedures and other requirements.
California's utility problems have also become an issue in the presidential
campaign. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader has called on the state
legislature and Gov. Gray Davis to pass a rate rollback law that doesn't
include a balloon payment to compensate utilities for the money they would
lose during a rate decrease.
"Electricity deregulation really brings about a collision of interests,"
Nader said. "It pits the interests of consumers - who are often unorganized
and lack power against the interests of supplierswho are usually very
organized, powerful and have a lot of money behind them. It shouldn't be that
way."
Energy Issues Divide Bush, Gore
For the first time in 20 years, energy issues could emerge as a major issue
in the presidential campaign. Both major candidates are trying to use the
issue to their advantage.
The Democrats argue that Texas Gov. George W. Bush and running mate Dick
Cheney - who are well-known figures in the oil industry - are in the back
pockets of oil companies that have lobbied to drill on more public lands.
Republicans have criticized Vice President Gore for failing to develop a plan
to address the country's long-term energy needs. The Republicans say that
Gore and his running mate Joseph Lieberman are more concerned about winning
the support of environmentalists than they are in developing an energy policy.
Gore and Lieberman support the development of alternative energy sources and
tax credits for energy-efficient vehicles. They also have promised to block
energy companies from drilling for oil or natural gas in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska or along the coasts of California and Florida.
Bush and Cheney favor increased domestic oil production to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil. Bush says he backs the moratorium on new drilling
in Florida and California, but supports oil exploration in the Arctic refuge.
Both Gore and Bush support new federal regulations that would require lower
sulfur levels in gasoline and cleaner engines in cars.
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 99
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClipsor contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] 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
=====================================
|
4,374 |
Subject: Order Clarifying April 26, 2001 Order on MMP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13115.
=====================================
Late in the afternoon on Friday May 25, FERC issued an order providing=20
clarification and preliminary guidance on implementation of the mitigation=
=20
and monitoring plan for the California wholesale electric markets that it=
=20
adopted on April 26. The order is limited to clarifying four critical issue=
s=20
prior to the Mitigation Plan's May 29 (today) effective date: (1) treatment=
=20
of generators who did not supply heat and emission rates; (2) calculation o=
f=20
a natural gas proxy price; (3) price mitigation in the ISO's spot markets=
=20
other than Imbalance Energy; and (4) creditworthiness. The order does not=
=20
resolve the rehearing requests, nor does it accept or reject the ISO's=20
proposed tariff amendments for filing. These pleadings are still under=20
review and FERC will address them in a separate order. =20
Treatment of Generators Who Did Not Supply Heat and Emission Rates
FERC accepts the ISO=01,s proposal for generating units within California=
=20
(including non-public utility generating units) that have not supplied heat=
=20
and emission rates in compliance with the April 26 Order:
For the generating units that have not provided the requisite data or whose=
=20
data the ISO believes to be inadequate, the ISO will use data from a viable=
=20
alternative source (e.g., either current or pre-existing Reliability Must-R=
un=20
Contracts). If an alternative source of data does not exist and the=20
generating unit continues to refuse to supply the requisite information, th=
e=20
ISO will treat the non-compliant generators as price-takers, i.e., the ISO=
=20
will assume a $0/MWh bid for all available capacity from these units. Thes=
e=20
generators, if dispatched, will be paid the market clearing price. =20
The FERC finds that to the extent a non-compliant seller does not wish to b=
e=20
treated as a price-taker, the ISO's approach will provide such entities wit=
h=20
an incentive to provide the ISO and the Commission with the requisite data.
Calculation of a Natural Gas Proxy Price
FERC rejects the ISO proposal to calculate a proxy natural gas cost based=
=20
upon the simple average of Gas Daily index prices for Malin, PG&E CityGate,=
=20
and Southern California Border (Kern River Station). The ISO is directed t=
o=20
calculate the natural gas proxy price using the published daily prices for=
=20
Malin, PG&E CityGate, Southern California Border (Kern River Station),=20
SoCalGas large packages, and PG&E large packages. The Commission will=20
consider whether any changes should be made to the California delivery poin=
ts=20
during rehearing of the April 26 Order. =20
Price Mitigation in the ISO's Spot Markets other than Imbalance Energy
The FERC finds that the ISO erred in its interpretation- that it does not=
=20
intend to apply any price mitigation to its Ancillary Services spot markets=
=20
or Adjustment Bids. The April 26 Order did not explicitly address the issue=
=20
of price mitigation in any market other than that for Imbalance Energy, the=
=20
order nonetheless noted that "this proceeding was established . . . to=20
address whether a price mitigation plan was needed to replace the $150/MWh=
=20
breakpoint methodology." The $150/MWh breakpoint methodology applied to th=
e=20
ISO's Ancillary Services markets. Therefore, the ISO must replace the=20
$150/MWh breakpoint methodology in those markets with the superseding=20
methodology adopted in the April 26 Order. The Commission further clarifie=
s=20
that the April 26 Order did not replace the ISO's current methodology for=
=20
mitigating Adjustment Bid prices.
With respect to calculating the market clearing price for Ancillary Service=
s,=20
FERC directs the ISO to use each relevant average hourly mitigated Imbalanc=
e=20
Energy price. If the Ancillary Services markets clear below the average=20
hourly mitigated Imbalance Energy price for that hour, then the ISO will pa=
y=20
the Ancillary Services clearing price for that market. If the Ancillary=20
Services markets clear above the average hourly mitigated Imbalance Energy=
=20
price, then the ISO will use that price to clear the market and will pay=20
as-bid for all Ancillary Services that are needed above the mitigated price=
. =20
Bids accepted above the mitigated price will be subject to refund and=20
justification. =20
Creditworthiness
As of May 29, 2001, FERC expects the ISO to ensure the presence of a=20
creditworthy buyer for all transactions made with all generators who offer=
=20
power in compliance with the must-offer requirement in the Mitigation Plan.=
=20
- EL00-95.1.WPD
=====================================
|
4,375 |
Subject: Insightful article re: Price Caps
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/503.
=====================================
How California Spread Its Electricity Shortage
by William Tucker
For six months, President George Bush, Jr., resisted
putting price controls on California electricity, saying they would only
make matters worse. Finally, in June, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) succumbed to public pressures and imposed wholesale
electricity price controls on the whole Western region. Two weeks later
there were blackouts in Las Vegas. "The perverse effect of price controls is
that they seem to have made things worse," complained Nevada officials.
Will George Bush get credit for resisting price controls? Will the Las Vegas
experience mean an end to federal intervention? Don't bet on it. The more
likely answer is -- more price controls and government regulation.
California's power problems arose not from natural disasters or bad weather
but from failing to build any major power plants since 1987. As a result,
the state is woefully short of electricity. The resulting price increase to
consumers would have been the first step in correcting the situation. But
no politician wants to be responsible for a rate increase on his watch. So
the state tried to force the utilities to swallow the extra costs. This
quickly drove the utilities to bankruptcy. Next the state tried buying
electricity itself. No one knows exactly how much this has cost, but rumors
put it at about $8 billion. California taxpayers will pay the bill for
decades. Finally, the solution became to spread the pain to other states.
The mechanism was price controls. California knew it couldn't get anywhere
by imposing price controls on its own wholesale electricity. That would
simply divert power to its neighbors. So the goal became to impose price
controls on the entire Western region. This would force Nevada, Arizona,
Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico to share the shortage. In fact
California did one better. While persuading FERC to impose price controls on
the Western grid, state officials also persuaded FERC to insert a clause
saying that, in the event of a power emergency, the Golden State could pay
10 percent higher prices. This would divert emergency supplies into
California. Sure enough, less than two weeks later, while enduring
112-degree temperatures, Las Vegas suffered rolling blackouts. More than
10,000 homes were without power for forty minutes. Casinos were forced to
douse lights and turn off air-conditioning. Meanwhile, California -- plagued
by the same weather -- dodged the bullet. "Why would power merchants sell to
us when they can get 10 percent more in California?" asked Paul Heagan, vice
president of Sierra Pacific Resources, which provides Las Vegas's
electricity. Meanwhile, California crowed. "Please note that the energy
crisis has officially spread to a state not exactly noted for its
environmentalism or its antipathy to growth," announced the Riverside (Cal.)
Press-Enterprise. Price controls have produced similarly perverse results
for 4,000 years. In Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls (1979),
Robert Schuettinger demonstrated how politicians and the public have never
given up the illusion that price controls can make things cheap and
plentiful. Hammurabi's Code, written in 1750 B.C., is basically a long list
of price controls. The Decline of the Roman Empire was sealed when the
Emperor Diocletian imposed price controls on the entire Roman economy. They
are history's longest running magic show. By holding a price below market
level, price controls encourage consumers to demand more while encouraging
producers to produce less. The result is an economic "shortage." When the
government heeds producers and holds prices above their market level, the
result is the opposite -- an economic "surplus." Since the 1930s, Congress
has imposed agricultural price supports to help farmers. Ever hear the term
"farm surpluses?" Yet no one ever gives up. Just a little more manipulation
will solve everything. "California and Nevada officials said they still have
faith that price limits can stabilize Western electricity markets,"
announced the San Francisco Chronicle two days later, "but that federal
regulators may have to tweak the system." The other grand illusion is that
price controls are only "temporary." In fact, they inevitably create such
disruption that a frustrated public only demands more price controls. New
York City's rent controls, imposed temporarily during World War II, are
still going strong. Paris still has rent controls from World War I. After
40 centuries, why quit now? William Tucker is a writer and columnist in New
York. (Posted 7/10/01)
=====================================
|
4,376 |
Subject: FW: Comments on OFO Settlement
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/195.
=====================================
Please let me know at your earliest convenience, whether the comments,
declaration and matrix meet with your approval. As noted below, PG&E will
be signing the comments on behalf of all consenting OFO Settlement parties.
Salle E. Yoo
Davis Wright Tremaine
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel. 415 276-6564; Fax 415 276-6599
[email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoo, Salle
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 2:32 PM
> To: 'Amirault, Paul'; 'Craig Chancellor'; 'Gerald Worster'; 'Grant
> Kolling'; 'James Weil'; 'Jeff Dasovich'; 'John Leslie'; 'Marcel Hawiger';
> 'Mark Baldwin'; 'Mark Pocta'; 'Michael Rochman'; 'Raveen Maan'; 'Rich
> Hall'; 'Ron Oechsler'; 'Tom Solberg'; 'Timothy J Hamilton';
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
> '[email protected]'
> Cc: How-Downing, Lindsey
> Subject: FW: Comments on OFO Settlement
>
> Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Comments of the Settlement Parties in
> Support of the OFO Settlement. ("Comments") The Comments address the
> specific issues raised by ALJ Biren at the last prehearing conference as
> laid out below in our previous email.
>
> I am also attaching a copy of the Declaration of Dan Thomas (addressing
> how the Settlement is in the public interest) and the matrix developed by
> PG&E that compares the terms of the OFO Settlement to those in the Gas
> Accord.
>
> In order to expedite the process, PG&E has suggested that it, as a
> representative of all settlement parties, be the sole signatory to the
> Comments. Therefore, please review the enclosed documents, provide any
> revisions and an indication of your assent/dissent to having PG&E sign the
> document on your behalf by end of business tomorrow (Thursday, November
> 18). The deadline for filing the Comments in Monday, November 22.
>
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
>
> Salle E. Yoo
> Davis Wright Tremaine
> One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600
> San Francisco, CA 94111
> Tel. 415 276-6564; Fax 415 276-6599
> [email protected]
>
> <<Comments_OFO.doc>> <<dft-dec.doc>> <<chart.doc>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoo, Salle
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 11:16 AM
> To: 'Amirault, Paul'; 'Ben Ledene'; 'Craig Chancellor'; 'Grant Kolling';
> 'Jeff Dasovich'; 'John Leslie'; 'Marcel Hawiger'; 'Mark Pocta'; 'Michael
> Rochman'; 'Raveen Maan'; 'Ron Oechsler'; 'Tom Solberg'; 'Rich Hall'; 'Mark
> Baldwin'; 'Timothy J Hamilton'; '[email protected]'
> Cc: 'Katie Elder'; How-Downing, Lindsey
> Subject: Comments on OFO Settlement
>
> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION SUBJECT TO CPUC RULE 51
>
>
> As you recall, at the prehearing conference, Judge Biren directed
> the OFO settlement parties to provide her with additional information
> regarding the OFO settlement. Friday, Nov.12, Patrick Golden and I had a
> follow-up conversation with Judge Biren to confirm the procedure by which
> she desires to receive the information.
>
> As a result of the call, Patrick and I suggest that the OFO
> settlement parties file joint "Comments Supporting Settlement" on Nov 22,
> along with any other party which may file comments on the settlement. Our
> comments would encompass the following:
>
> 1) The settlement is in the public interest as attested by an attached
> declaration.
>
> 2) The settlement does not constitute a change in the basic Gas Accord
> settlement; it merely refines implementation details on the Gas Accord.
> As a result, no hearings are necessary on the settlement.
>
> 3) Neither SB1602 nor 1421 impact immediate Commission approval of the
> settlement.
>
> 4) The settlement is intended to be a final, not an interim, settlement.
>
> With respect to Judge Biren's request for declarations (which she
> reconfirmed despite agreeing that Rule 51 does not require declarations),
> Patrick and I discussed having the settling parties provide one
> declaration from PG&E outlining the reasons why the settlement is in the
> public interest, and having the PG&E declarant be authorized to state that
> the following parties authorize him to state that they support his
> declaration.
>
> Judge Biren confirmed that any replies to our comments would be due
> along with all other reply comments on the settlement.
>
> If you have any comments or suggestions on this approach, please let
> either Salle Yoo or me know ASAP.
>
>
> Lindsey How-Downing
> Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
> One Embarcadero, Suite 600
> San Francisco, California 94111
> Phone 415-276-6512
> Fax 415-276-6599
> Email [email protected]
- Comments_OFO.doc
- dft-dec.doc
- chart.doc
=====================================
|
4,377 |
Subject: RE: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12568.
=====================================
Could you please fax me a copy of plan B? Sorry we didn't participate in
the call yesterday--no one at Mirant received notice of the call, though I
understand you did e-mail out the call information. Must have been a
technical glitch.
My fax number is 678-579-5890. Thanks.
Sonnet Edmonds
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:48 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call
Greetings:
n order to keep everyone in the loop, the folks on today's call wanted to
send out a brief summary of the call for the benefit of those who couldn't
make it. Apologies for any omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Others who were
on the call please chime in if I've gotten anything wrong, or missed
anything.
Best,
Jeff
SUMMARY
Enron, Duke, El Paso and Williams were on the call, as was Michael
Hoffman of the Blackstone Group (the Governor's financial advisors).
On the subject of how the group would organize itself, it was agreed
that the calls would be open to anyone who wanted to participate.
A smaller group consisting of Duke, El Paso, Enron, and Williams would
take the lead on walking the halls of Sacramento, meeting with policy
makers, and advocating whatever plan the group develops.
Folks agreed that achieving a comprehesive solution requires a tangible
process; that is, the principals need to get in a room, face to face,
for however long it takes to work out a resolution.
It was agreed that the process should start no later than the beginning
of next week, and that it should take place in Sacramento.
It was decided that the Legislature and the Attorney General needed to
be brought into the process as soon as possible, i.e., next week.
There was some discussion regarding the release today of "Plan B." Plan
B is a plan proposed by Democratic and Republican legislators as an
alternative to the MOU that the Governor struck with Edison. After that
call I received a copy of "Plan B." If you'd like a copy please send me
your fax number.
Folks on the call agreed to have the next "supplier-only" call-in
meeting on Friday.
Finally, Michael Hoffman said that they are hoping to have a "ratings
agency level" presentation prepared by the end of the week. The goal of
the presentation is to reassure capital markets that the bonds the state
seeks to issue are solidly backed by retail rates.
The Agenda for Tomorrow's Call with the Governor's Staff
Item #1: The Credit Issue
Michael Hoffman said that the Governor's office wants to start
tomorrow's meeting discussing the creditworthiness issue.
Hoffman said that the Governor's folks are hoping to have completed by
the start of tomorrow's meeting a draft of an agreement between the
California PUC and CDWR. The agreement is designed to ensure that DWR
gets paid for power services delivered.
If the draft is ready, they'd like to discuss on the call tomorrow.
Item #2: Identify the Components of a Comprehensive Solution.
It was agreed that our group should put on the table at tomorrow's
meeting the universe of issues that need to be included in a
comprehensive solution.
Enron was asked to take a first stab at what those components are. The
following is a brief outline, which is not intended to be definitive,
but a starting point for discussion.
Utility creditworthiness
retail rates must reflect costs
Increase supply
streamline and otherwise reform the siting process
Decrease demand
establish real-time pricing
implement demand buy-down and other conservation programs
Create a real market
Remove the State from the power-buying business as soon as possible
(e.g., once new rates are in place and utilities are returned to
creditworthiness; approximately 3-6 months)
Return the procurement role to the utilities
Reinstate Direct Access immediately for all customers
Within 18-24 months, create a "core/noncore" market structure for
electricity, similar to California's market structure for natural
gas
Keep the industry in the hands of the private sector
Reject proposals calling on the State to take over transmission,
generation, etc.
Resolve outstanding legal claims, investigations, etc.
Resolution requires certainty and prompt payment (understanding
that discounts on receivables is on the table for discussion)
=====================================
|
4,378 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/202.
=====================================
Ariba Hits Some Speed Bumps on the Fast-Growth Highway
By Joe Bousquin
Staff Reporter
9/7/00 3:21 PM ET
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/tech/internet/1070107.html
SAN FRANCISCO -- In a sign that the business-to-business software game is
tough even when you're on top, Ariba (ARBA:Nasdaq) has been running into
problems this summer, both at home and abroad.
Ariba told analysts and investors at a private breakout session here Tuesday
at the Robertson Stephens Internet Conference that its business in Europe
this summer has been "soft," according to Eric Upin, an analyst at the firm.
And at home, analysts are starting to talk about problems the company has had
integrating its Tradex software into its own and customers' systems.
An Ariba spokeswoman didn't immediately return a call seeking a comment.
The challenges Ariba is facing illustrate how difficult it can be to stay
ahead of the game in an emerging industry, even for one of its most
aggressive leaders. And they come at a time when its main competitor,
Commerce One (CMRC:Nasdaq), is gaining momentum in key markets -- including
Europe -- through its partnership with German software maker SAP (SAP:NYSE
ADR).
Upin, who rates Ariba a buy and lists the company as one of his top B2B
picks, says the new concerns have to be taken in context. (His firm hasn't
performed underwriting for the company.)
"Ariba's just getting ramped up in Europe, and Europe's slow during the
summer. It's a tiny part of their business," Upin said. "But there was
concern because Ariba was saying that business was soft [in Europe] in
August."
That concern has been reflected in Ariba's stock, which is trading just under
$162, off from its Sept. 1 close of $166.25. It fell 6.1% Wednesday after the
breakout session, though it's up about 3% Thursday. With the stock trading at
more than 70 times next year's projected sales, it's priced to perfection.
Ariba's softness in Europe comes at a time when Commerce One has been making
strides there. Its partnership with SAP has resulted in six new customers so
far. Commerce One also announced a joint marketing and sales alliance with
Intershop, another German software maker, on Thursday.
At home, Ariba has been encountering problems in integrating its Tradex
software, which enables users to participate in auctions over the Internet,
into its customers' systems, as well as into its own software platform.
Ian Toll, an analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, says those problems
shouldn't be viewed as too much of an impediment for Ariba. But they do
illustrate the complexities of building software that is designed to do
everything from manage back-office accounting systems to trade real-time with
outside partners.
"Implementation has certainly been a concern with Tradex," Toll said.
"Certain Tradex customers have highlighted what appear to be longer time
lines than they had hoped for. But I think that's true across competing
vendors as well." (Toll rates Ariba a buy, and his firm hasn't done
underwriting for the company.)
While Ariba issued a news release Thursday crowing about how drugstore
operator CVS (CVS:NYSE) recently went live on its Ariba Buyer software in
just 60 days, observers say that getting Tradex installed and working is
taking closer to six months. In the hard-charging world of B2B, that's an
eternity.
Ariba completed its acquisition of Tradex in March. Ariba has hailed the
acquisition as one that gives it best-of-breed auction capability, which it
would integrate into its own suite of software products. But competitors,
most notably Oracle (ORCL:Nasdaq), pooh-poohed the deal, saying that
stringing together complex technologies through acquisitions is easier said
than done.
And in its most recent quarterly results release, when it reported record
revenue of $80.7 million that was backed up by $153 million in deferred
revenue, the company cautioned that integration of Tradex could be a
stumbling point.
In the release's boilerplate section that noted that actual results could
differ from projections, Ariba said those differences could result from,
among other things, "difficulties in assimilating companies recently
acquired, including Tradex."
Despite the problems, though, analysts are still positive on the company.
"Ariba could be the next Oracle," Robbie Stephens' Upin said. "And there were
quarters when Oracle promised and didn't deliver or it missed altogether. But
even for an Ariba, there will be those bumps along the road."
But as competition increases in the B2B sector, those bumps are getting more
pronounced.
=====================================
|
4,379 |
Subject: FW: California Update 7-18-2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Kristin', 'Walsh', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28928.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Sanders, Richard B.
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:59 AM
To: Sweet, Twanda
Subject: FW: California Update 7-18-2001
Importance: High
-----Original Message-----
From: Whitman, Britt
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:48 PM
To: Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew
Cc: Walsh, Kristin
Subject: California Update 7-18-2001
Importance: High
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Kristin Walsh at (713)
853-9510 or G. Britt Whitman at (713) 345-4014.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
? Multiple MOU Plans Debated
? California State Budget Faces One Last Hurdle
Budget
There is a small possibility that Sen. Burton will not recess the Senate on
Thursday unless the Senate passes the budget that the Assembly passed last
night (7-17). However a key Democrat, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, has been is in Italy
and is on a 16 hour return flight. No one knows if she has been told to
return and without her presence, two Republican votes are still needed to
pass any urgency measure for the budget. Kuehl's vote is crucial if they
take the bill up on Thursday.
MOU Mayhem
There are currently three leading MOU plans being resuscitated by the
California House and Senate deliberations. Senator Burton is hoping to keep
the published schedule and adjourn for a month's recess on Thursday evening.
Speaker Hertzberg is reportedly not thrilled with leaving until the Edison
issue is resolved. However, rumor is that whether or not they recess on
Thursday, their adjournment will mark the end of the Second Extraordinary
session and all XX bills passed and signed will go into effect in 90 days
(all others will be dead). Although Davis has stressed the urgency of
passing a comprehensive "bail-out" plan and even threatened to call an
emergency session to prevent legislators from taking a 30-day recess on
Friday, there is no clear indication that legislators will comply with this
request.
? Hertzberg's bill 82XX - Of the more obvious differences from Davis MOU,
82XX proposes to offer SoCal $300 M less for its transmission lines in
addition to penalizing Edison if it fails to act in good faith in closing the
deal. It comes as no surprise that during bill deliberations, SoCal raised
objections to the bill and warned of impending difficulties (bankruptcy) for
So Cal were the bill left unamended.
? The Wright-Richman bill 83XX - We reported last week that 83XX remains the
only measure fueled by bipartisan support. AB 83XX was heard in an
"informational" hearing yesterday (7-17) and will be heard again today in the
Assembly Energy Committee. Assemblyman Rod Wright, the Chairman of the
Committee, presented AB 83xx with Dr. Keith Richman, a Republican Assemblyman
from Southern California. They offered 83XX as an Edison bail-out, pure and
simple. Wright was clear to distinguish his bill from 82XX, which he said has
conservation easements and land requisitions, a renewable portfolio which
will add an additional fee on ratepayers, and reasonable review for long term
contracts. While the chances of the Richman bill being successful appear
slim, reports that that Hertzberg will try to negotiate elements of his own
bill (82XX) as amendments to the Wright/Richman measure suggest that at least
Hertzberg feels Richman's 83XX stands a chance.
? The Byron Sher bill, SB 78XX (Polanco) - Previously presented by Sen.
Polanco on behalf of Governor Davis, SB 78XX has received special attention
from Senate President, John Burton. Although it has never been heard by a
committee, SB 78XX is currently on the Senate floor and ready for a vote. The
Senate Energy Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee are both
scheduled to have informational hearings on this bill today. Note, the
meetings are informational because neither committee has possession of the
bill. These hearings will provide information to committee members, avoid a
formal vote, and simultaneously shield Burton/Polanco from claims that the
details of SB78XX were never released. The Senate is scheduled to be in
session tomorrow, ostensibly to vote on the state budget and SB 78XX. Given
Burton's penchant for wanting to keep on schedule to recess tomorrow, there
is no guarantee that he will hold the Senate in session once they hear SB
78XX. Thus, the Senate may never even see AB 82XX and AB 83XX unless either
or both bills are passed out of the Assembly today and get special treatment
by Burton to be heard tomorrow. Burton has previously adjourned the Senate to
keep on schedule once they finish their business, even if the Assembly is
behind them.
=====================================
|
4,380 |
Subject: RE: DA Suspended, but NOT retroactively
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Susan; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote;=', 'Vicki Sandler; Tamara Johnson; Mara', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/185.
=====================================
Dan. You might want to amend. The decision puts everyone on notice that t=
he Commission is going to consider taking it back to July 1---no info on wh=
at the decision process would be.
=20
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:34 PM
To: ARM
Cc: Vicki Sandler; Tamara Johnson; Mara, Susan; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote;=
Rob Nichol; Randy Hickok; Nam Nguyen; Jim Crossen; Dasovich, Jeff; Janie M=
ollon; Jack Pigott; Greg Blue; George Vaughn; Gary Ackerman; Ed Cazalet; De=
nice Cazalet Purdum; Curtis Kebler; Curt Hatton; Corby Gardiner; Charles Mi=
essner; Carolyn Baker; Bill Ross; Karen Shea; Max Bulk
Subject: DA Suspended, but NOT retroactively
The Commission has just voted 3-2 to approve the draft ALJ Barnett decision=
, modified to be prospective only. There is NO retroactive suspension.
=20
Carl Wood introduced the ALJ's draft decision, with a diatribe against dire=
ct access. He said that DA is a subsidy from less attractive customers to =
large customers and an example of the saying that, "big dogs eat first and =
big dogs eat best." He added that most comments advocated delay of suspens=
ion and no retroactivity. He said he "finds it hard to consider these comm=
ents to be anything but misleading and disingenuous." He added that, "Smal=
l consumers effectively have no options." He said retroactivity will be th=
e subject of further review, although it was not clear what this meant. Wi=
thin 14 days, the UDCs must inform the Energy Division of steps taken not t=
o accept DASRs for contracts entered into after 9/20/01. He said that dire=
ct access is half of the failed deregulation process; the other half was op=
ening ourselves up to the erratic wholesale market. He said that supporter=
s of DA engage in "hollow rhetoric." The market has failed in the state, a=
nd, "We need to put an end to the lack of social responsibility in the elec=
tric market."
He concluded that several commenters had indicated that direct access was a=
way for making green power available to residential customers. He respond=
ed that this just means other customers are getting more dirty coal-fired p=
ower. He concluded that advocates of direct access make a "fraudulent clai=
m of customer choice." <?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-mic=
rosoft-com:office:office" />
Commissioner Bilas then spoke for his alternate, responding to Wood. He sa=
id he had learned how to count, and he can count to three. He then briefly=
summarized his alternate. First, he expressed disappointment in the Sacra=
mento process and the fact that they had not yet done something to rescue d=
irect access. Second, he indicated his view of DA was a lot different from=
that of other people. He said he had always opposed the AB 1890 provision=
that instituted the UDC buy-sell arrangement, saying that it eliminated th=
e largest customers from direct access. Commissioner Duque then spoke brie=
fly to indicate his support for the Bilas alternate draft decision and his =
strong support for direct access.=20
Commissioner Brown said first, "In the weight of these sad times we must ob=
ey. We are paying the price of the severe energy crisis which occurred las=
t year and the extraordinary means that were used to resolve it." In an or=
dinary market, he thinks DA is good, but there is no way it can coexist wit=
h the State's $22 billion worth of bonds. Therefore, there is no question =
that it has to be suspended. "We probably should have done so months ago, =
in order to avoid a last-minute stampede." There is an inequity between cu=
stomers that have moved to opt for direct access and those who have not. B=
ut sometimes "you don't have a lot of good choices, and this is one of thos=
e times." "If future legislation comes forward, and we hope that it would,=
" the Commission will attempt to revise this action. =20
President Lynch noted the State Senate leadership has written asking for a =
study to be delivered by 1/1/02 as to how DA can be maintained without bias=
to ratepayers and she supported this action.=20
Bilas and Duque indicated they will both file dissents.=20
In conclusion, we have prevailed in our opposition to retroactive direct ac=
cess suspension. We now need to consider whether we want to contest the su=
spension itself, on legal/procedural grounds.
Dan
=20
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
=====================================
|
4,381 |
Subject: RE: CEC Report on Natural Gas Supplies Adopted
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/488.
=====================================
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:46 AM
To: Tycholiz, Barry; Miller, Stephanie; Dyer, Laird; Belden, Tim
Subject: FW: CEC Report on Natural Gas Supplies Adopted
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoen, Mary
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:58 AM
To: Parquet, David; Wehn, Samuel; Comnes, Alan; Swain, Steve; Brodbeck, Kelly
Cc: Keeler, Jeff; Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Subject: CEC Report on Natural Gas Supplies Adopted
The CEC just approved a report drafted by staff that states there will be adequate natural gas supply this winter for electricity generation needs. It does qualify this statement by discussing where potential bottlenecks in delivery might occur and recommends actions to address the bottlenecks. See below for a link to the report.
Mary Schoen
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
415.782.7803 (phone)
415.782.7854 (fax)
For immediate release: October 3, 2001
Contact: Claudia Chandler : 916-654-4989
Energy Commission Report Projects
Improved Natural Gas Supplies For the State
Sacramento -While current natural gas prices in California have dropped to approximately half of 2000's average price, the specter remains of last December, when tight supplies caused prices to spike to 25 times their present rates. Now, as winter approaches, industry watchers wonder if the State has enough of the clean-burning fuel for the upcoming heating season, even as new gas-fired electricity generators come on line.
The Natural Gas Infrastructure Issues Report , adopted today by a 4-to-0 vote of the California Energy Commission, gives a qualified "yes" to the question of adequate supplies this winter. It identifies sufficient storage as a critical factor, and notes that utilities have substantially increased natural gas storage, largely because conservation and efficiency have dampened summer electricity demand.
Nearly 85 percent of the natural gas used by Californians comes by pipeline from gas fields located outside the State. Since California typically uses more natural gas in the winter than interstate pipelines can provide, additional supplies must be set aside in summer months to help balance supply and demand. For this reason, the report recommends that the Energy Commission continuously assess storage levels and monitor infrastructure improvements throughout the year.
The newly adopted report points out that California's natural gas supply system was designed years ago to provide enough gas for winter's peak heating demand. An increasing reliance on natural gas for generating electricity, however, has strained the system and revised old patterns of consumption.
"This report helps Californians understand what we have to do to assure that we have a reliable and reasonably priced electricity and natural gas system in the future," said Energy Commissioner Michal (spelling correct) Moore, Presiding Member of the Electricity and Natural Gas Committee that developed the document.
To help resolve possible supply problems, the document analyzes not only natural gas storage requirements but the interstate pipelines that bring the fuel from distant gas fields to the California border. These pipelines can deliver slightly more natural gas than intra-state gas pipelines ? those within our State's borders ? can receive. As a result, there are bottlenecks in getting some supplies to gas consumers that the report says must be improved.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) are improving and expanding their intra-state pipeline systems to help eliminate these constraints. According to the report, planned expansions of the interstate pipeline network should increase natural gas delivery to the State beginning next year, and additional improvements to the natural gas system should help prevent higher-than-normal prices that plagued California last winter.
Natural gas supplies in North America appear to be sufficient to meet demand in California and the rest of the United States for the next 50 years. The report recommends that the Energy Commission continue to monitor drilling rig activity and production levels for the long-term outlook. It also suggests that the Energy Commission, along with the Public Utilities Commission, should find ways to encourage and increase the in-state supply of natural gas.
The just adopted Natural Gas Infrastructure Issues Report can be found on the Energy Commission's Web Site at:
www.energy.ca.gov/contracts <http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts>
Or report is attached:
<< File: Gas Infrastructure Report.pdf >>
=====================================
|
4,382 |
Subject: FYI: Sacramento Bee--Dan Walters: Repaying huge power debts still
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12542.
=====================================
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/14/2001 11:51 AM -----
"Beiser, Megan" <[email protected]>
06/13/2001 04:39 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FYI: Sacramento Bee--Dan Walters: Repaying huge power debts still
looms as a high political hurdle
Dan Walters: Repaying huge power debts still looms as a high political
hurdle
(Published June 13, 2001)
Gov. Gray Davis has been running around California lately proclaiming that
California is "turning the corner" on the energy crisis, explicitly citing
sharply lower wholesale prices for electricity and, implicitly, his improved
standing in polls.
Events will reveal whether Davis' June hubris was justified. Despite the
recent drop in spot power prices, however, many aspects of the energy crisis
remain unresolved, and chief among them is liquidating the $20 billion-plus
in debts that utilities and the state have accumulated for power purchases.
A $13.4 billion bond issue that is supposed to reimburse the state's general
fund for more than $8 billion advanced for power purchases and then finance
future electricity buys has been hung up by demands of potential bond
underwriters for more assurances about repayment. The bonds may not be sold
until August, if ever. And by then, nearly the entire bond issue may have to
flow to the state's general fund, leaving little to finance future power
buys.
And then there are the $14 billion or so in debts that the state's two big
utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, incurred
for power purchases before their credit was cut off in January. PG&E already
has declared bankruptcy, and Edison was on the verge when Davis hurriedly
signed a "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) on a rescue scheme, the
centerpieces being state purchase of Edison's share of the intercity power
grid, plus a plan for ratepayers to pay off the utility's debts.
The Edison scheme has been denounced as a "bailout" by consumer activists
and faces certain legislative rejection, despite a multimillion-dollar
lobbying and public relations drive by the utility. And it's sparked a
complex set of private maneuvers in and around the Capitol that are fraying
the already cool relations between Davis and the Legislature's most powerful
leader, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton.
Davis called a dozen senators into his office Monday to press approval of
the Edison MOU with minimal changes. Burton, who didn't attend, says the
governor threatened legislators with rejection of their bills or budget
appropriations if they didn't play ball, and promised retaliation if Davis
uses strong-arm tactics for Edison.
"On an issue like this, they (legislators) ought to be able to vote their
consciences," Burton told reporters, denouncing the Edison deal as a
"flat-ass bailout."
Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio rejected Burton's account: "The governor's
too smart to do any of that."
As the public squabbling heats up, so is the private search for a compromise
that Edison, consumerists and other principal players can accept -- without
much confidence that it can be found. A dizzying array of MOU alternatives
is being floated, including an effort by Burton and Assembly Speaker Bob
Hertzberg to persuade Edison creditors to write off part of the debt, and
for big industrial and power consumers to shoulder the rest in return for
recapturing the authority to make power supply deals outside the utility
grid.
In effect, the plan would create two power systems, one with regulated rates
for individual and small business customers and unregulated "direct access"
for big users. Former Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, a lobbyist whose firm
includes energy generators, is acting as a mediator on behalf of Hertzberg.
Sources close to the negotiations say the big users won't entertain the deal
until they know how much power the state has been buying, and at what
prices. Davis has insisted on keeping that data secret, and has been sued by
the news media and others to force release, but on Tuesday announced that he
will agree to opening the supply contracts to inspection.
The chances of an Edison deal coming together this summer are no better than
50-50 -- about the same odds of the state's completing its bond sale. And
those uncertainties are compounded by great fears that California still
faces the prospect of widespread and prolonged power blackouts this summer.
"I don't think it's over," Burton said Tuesday in a jab at Davis.
The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or
[email protected] .
=====================================
|
4,383 |
Subject: Re: Utilization of Mike Day
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12512.
=====================================
Looks complete to me. No comments.
Best,
Jeff
Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate
05/15/2001 11:30 AM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Utilization of Mike Day
Rick, Jim and Jeff: Here's a draft of the e-mail I intend to send to Sandy
and Mike re: use of Mike Day in Sacramento. Let me know your thoughts.
It appears from talking with both of you that we have some confusion on how
we will contract for legal services to support or legislative efforts.
Hopefully this e-mail will clarify the process so there is no confusion in
the future and so that Mike can feel comfortable he is completing work that
is authorized and for which we have a budget.
1. To begin, it appears that Goodin, MacBride has billings as of May 11 for
approximately $10,000 on direct access, windfall profits, the "Global
Settlement," Power Plant Siting. We will cover these amounts because of the
apparent confusion with our budgeting and approval process. The amounts
already incurred should be included in the RCRs discussed below.
2. As we discussed yesterday, the work associated with the billings in May
was conducted without any RCR approval or any budget in place. As you know
we terminated the two legislative retainers at the end of April. No RCRs
were filed to cover the matters on which work was completed in May.
I did receive a budget on legislative matters on May 8. However, a decision
was made only yesterday to proceed on a specific matter-by-matter basis; the
work in May should not have been undertaken while we considered whether to
proceed with an overall legislative budget or proceed with specific RCRs. In
short, a proposed budget is not RCR approval.
3. In the future, any work undertaken by Goodin MacBride should only be
conducted pursuant to an approved RCR. If an emergency arises--i.e., an
issue arises that could not have been contemplated, then I should be
contacted before completing any work. If I am unavailable, Jim Steffes
should be contacted. If Jim is unavailable, then Rick Shapiro should be
contacted. In this regard, I authorized Goodin MacBride to participate in
the Direct Access coalition meetings taking place today and tomorrow. I also
authorized Goodin MacBride to participate in a telephonic conference on the
Calderon bill. To the maximum extent possible, I expect that Mike will
include Leslie Lawner in future Direct Access meetings, legislative drafting
efforts, etc.
4. If there is any confusion on whether there is RCR approval for a
particular matter, I should be contacted before undertaking an assignment.
If I am unavailable, Jim Steffes should be contacted. If Jim is unavailable,
then Rick Shapiro should be contacted. I can be reached through my office
line--503.464.7945, pager--888.916.2262, or cell phone 503.539.4733. I wear
the pager at all times and respond immediately to messages left on the
pager.
5. Today, Sandy is filing several RCRs for legislative support on Direct
Access, Siting, Windfalls Profits, and the Global Settlement. They will be
considered at next Monday's RCR conference call. If they are approved, Sandy
will manage the Goodin MacBride assignments associated with Direct Access,
Siting, and Windfalls Profits.
Jeff Dasovich will manage all work associated with the Global Settlement,
whether it is legislative or not. This does not mean that Sandy cannot give
assignments to Goodin MacBride; it simply means that before that work begins
Jeff must approve the work.
This particular issue is a critical matter for our company. Jeff is involved
in the strategy and business calls concerning this matter and is working on a
daily basis with Jim Steffes, Rick Shapiro and Steve Kean to develop our
position and advocate that position in the settlement discussions. We must
ensure that our Sacramento efforts are fully coordinated with our strategy
and business interests (as they develop through the settlement
discussions). To avoid any confusion on the scope of Jeff's responsibility,
I consider all legislation addressing the Edison MOU, any future MOUs with
Sempra, and "Plan B," to be part of the Global Settlement.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of the above. I
recognize that Sacramento is a difficult environment and that there is
substantial pressure on both of you. However, we are under an obligation to
use our internal and external resources in the best and most cost-effective
manner. The RCR process is designed to meet that responsiblity.
=====================================
|
4,384 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ - US FERC Taking 'Hard Look' At Pwr Mkt Abuse Allegations
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1002.
=====================================
Sounds like at least some at FERC already share our view on what is wrong
with California.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:46:33 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>,
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ - US FERC Taking 'Hard Look' At Pwr Mkt Abuse Allegations
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
This article provides another data point indicating that FERC does not plan
to return to cost-based rates in California.
DJ US FERC Taking 'Hard Look' At Pwr Mkt Abuse Allegations
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
(This article was originally published Thursday)
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will act
aggressively in response to any evidence of market manipulation uncovered by
a pending staff investigation of problems affecting U.S. wholesale power
markets, a top commission official said Thursday.
FERC will "take a hard look" at allegations that power producers in
California exercised market power during this summer's tight and volatile
market, said Daniel Larcamp, director of FERC's Office of Markets, Tariffs
and Rates.
He said he expects the commission to be "aggressive in response to
anticompetitive behavior." He didn't elaborate.
But the FERC official, speaking at a conference for industrial energy users,
focused his remarks on the structural problems plaguing the California
market, and U.S. electricity markets in general.
Fixing the problems with California's market structure will require political
and regulatory courage, Larcamp said, rejecting calls from municipal
utilities and others in the state for a return to cost-of-service ratemaking.
The transition from command-and-control regulation to competitive markets
"will have problems," Larcamp said.
The task for regulators is "to do a better job of anticipating the problems,"
he said, conceding that California's woes this summer have shaken the
public's confidence in market reforms.
Larcamp drew a contrast between California, where power plant development has
been virtually nonexistent over the last decade, and the U.S. Midwest, where
unprecedented price spikes in 1998 and 1999 spurred a rash of power plant
development.
The Midwest markets never saw power above $150 per megawatt-hour this summer,
Larcamp noted, conceding that this may be in part due to the "good luck" of
more normal summer weather.
But while tens of thousands of megawatts of new power capacity has been
proposed for the Midwest in the wake of volatility in 1998 and 1999,
California and the entire Western Systems Coordination Council have seen only
800 megawatts of new capacity proposed over the last 18 months, Larcamp said.
"Those statistics are rather startling from my perspective," he said,
suggesting that the figures indicate barriers to market entry.
Yet even with the boom in proposed plant development in the Midwest, the
summer saw an increase in use of transmission line-loading relief procedures
in the region, Larcamp noted, calling this a signal of the need for more
investment in generation and transmission.
But while FERC has directed utilities to standardize interconnection
standards, Larcamp said, the primary responsibility for plant siting lies
with state authorities.
Citing concerns that California siting policies and environmental review
contribute to the lag in new plant development, Larcamp suggested changes
should be implemented to speed the process without compromising environmental
protections.
Since FERC can only do so much in addressing the supply side, it is giving
serious consideration to measures it can take to address the demand side of
volatile U.S. power markets, Larcamp said.
Retail consumers typically buy power at fixed rates and see no "price signal"
during constrained and volatile markets. This lack of a "demand response" is
a key problem affecting all U.S. power markets, Larcamp said.
"Demand has been growing at very high rates," he said, citing 5% annual
growth in some regions and 7% growth last year in California.
One solution may be to allow retail customers, particularly industrial
consumers, to re-sell their power into the market at prevailing rates,
Larcamp suggested.
However, he noted such a program would have to be structured to avoid legal
problems under the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act.
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-6647,
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 13-10-00
=====================================
|
4,385 |
Subject: RE: WPTF, Community Choice
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/371.
=====================================
Paul,
We see what you refer to as " the Cavanaugh/Edison bill" as a re-play of AB
1421 from last year. That bill will destroy the retail market. We opposed
1421 and we'll oppose any son of 1421. We do not want to see it tied to any
aggregation bill, the public goods charge extension or anything else.
Sue Mara
Paul Fenn <[email protected]> on 02/24/2000 07:03:12 PM
To: Don Dame <[email protected]>
cc: Gary Ackerman <[email protected]>, Beth Bloom <[email protected]>, Bill Ross
<[email protected]>, Bob Anderson <[email protected]>, Corby Gardin
<[email protected]>, Curtis Kebler
<[email protected]>, David Bobo <[email protected]>, Greg
Blue <[email protected]>, Ken Czarnecki <[email protected]>, Kent
Wheatland <[email protected]>, Leah Bissonette <[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]>, Tom Delaney
<[email protected]>, Vicki Sandler <[email protected]>, Dan
Douglass <[email protected]>, Don Dame <[email protected]>, Old Deuteronomy
<[email protected]>, Sean Casey <[email protected]>, Jim Price
<[email protected]>, Paul Fenn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: WPTF, Community Choice
Don,
While the points you make are good ones, I think we should go for it this
year.
First, the Cavanaugh/Edison bill will in part restructure Chapter 854
regarding the role of the default provider, and Edison will be asking for a
solidification of its distribution role, so this it is the natural vehicle
to redress aggregation. If we wait until next year it may be too late,
because we will be pushing rather than pulling. I think Edison and PG&E may
put up less of a fight in this context.
Second, while the League of Cities has not been involved, twelve cities and
counties representing 2 million Californians passed a resolution last year
asking the legislature for Community Choice. The leaders, from the Southern
California Cities Joint Powers Consortium, San Francisco, Oakland, and
Marin County, are actively involved in geting support from Bowen and
Burton. Oakland is planning a statewide conference of cities and national
leaders on Community Choice this Summer, which would coincide with
committee hearings and attract media attention. In both Massachusetts and
Ohio, we had weak support from the Leagues and did the job with about 35
municipalities represented. I am confident we will have that number in
California this year.
Third, TURN is providing strong support for the bill. I believe CALPIRG,
UCAN and other consumer groups will give strong support as a result of the
national coalition for Community Choice legislation, RAGE, which has signed
most of them on the agenda over the past two years.
Finally, the PUC is looking into Distribution Competition this year, and
both the ORA and Strategic Planning are actively interested in Community
Choice as a strategy for making the market work.
As you described it, the legislation allows municipalities to implement
Community Choice programs, and does not require it.
Regards,
Paul Fenn
At 02:17 PM 02/24/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>I truly believe that giving local public entities the right, but not the
>obligation, to provide default commodity service will advance competition
>and provide one more check against host IOU economic hegemony.
>
>To get legislation passed, however, will require at least three components:
>
>1) An informed, supportive bill sponsor (Debra Bowen would be ideal,
>and lots of other legislative support).
>
>2) A bit of national focus and support (say APPA and others)
>
>3) And, vocal support from the League of Cities and other local
>government organizations.
>
>I do not believe we are yet close to at least two of the above three. I may
>make sense to generate more widespread support and debate before submitting
>a bill which will not pass. PG&E and SCE will mount a very effective attack
>on any bill giving default rights to local governments. If we try
>prematurely and fail, subsequent attempts may be doomed to failure as well.
>
>I believe that we should work the turf and see if we can generate some local
>govt. enthusiasm for such a bill, without which it will not likely pass.
>Although I hate to delay, the chances of success may increase if we wait
>6-12 months and use the interim period to gain additional support.
>
>Any rebuttal??
>
Paul Fenn
[email protected]
Tel/Fax 510 451 1727
American Local Power Project
1615 Broadway 1005
Oakland, CA 94612
United States
local.org
=====================================
|
4,386 |
Subject: FW: NGI Article on SoCalGas GCIM
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/299.
=====================================
Jeff - Can you answer Jess's question? I wondered the same thing myself. =
It doesn't make much sense to raise the rates in order to make payments to =
the customers.
-----Original Message-----
From: =09Hewitt, Jess =20
Sent:=09Friday, August 10, 2001 10:17 AM
To:=09Cantrell, Rebecca W.
Subject:=09Re:
why would both options require a hike in the proposed rates?
From:=09Rebecca W Cantrell/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Cantrell/ENRON@enronXga=
te> on 08/10/2001 10:03 AM
To:=09Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Allen/ENRON@enronXgate>, "Al=
varez, Ray" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>@SMTP@enr=
onXgate, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Black/HOU/EES@EES>, Alan Comnes/ENRO=
N@enronXgate <mailto:Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate>, Mark Courtney/HOU/EES@EES <m=
ailto:Courtney/HOU/EES@EES>, Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Dasovic=
h/ENRON@enronXgate>, Frank Ermis/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Ermis/ENRON@enron=
Xgate>, Robert Frank/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Frank/ENRON@enronXgate>, Donn=
a Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON <mailto:Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON>, Scott Gahn/HOU/=
EES@EES <mailto:Gahn/HOU/EES@EES>, Mike Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Gr=
igsby/ENRON@enronXgate>, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES=
>, Keith Holst/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Holst/ENRON@enronXgate>, Paul Kaufm=
an/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate>, Harry Kingerski/ENRO=
N@enronXgate <mailto:Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate>, Leslie Lawner/ENRON@enron=
Xgate <mailto:Lawner/ENRON@enronXgate>, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate <mail=
to:Mara/ENRON@enronXgate>, Stephanie Miller/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Miller=
/ENRON@enronXgate>, Christi L Nicolay/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Nicolay/ENRO=
N@enronXgate>, Dave Perrino/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Perrino/ENRON@enronXga=
te>, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Ponce/HOU/EES@EES>, Greg Sharp/HOU/E=
ES@EES <mailto:Sharp/HOU/EES@EES>, Kristann Shireman/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Sh=
ireman/HOU/EES@EES>, Matt Smith/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Smith/ENRON@enronX=
gate>, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate>, =
Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Stoness/HOU/EES@EES>, Jane M Tholt/ENRON@=
enronXgate <mailto:Tholt/ENRON@enronXgate>, Jennifer Thome/ENRON@enronXgate=
<mailto:Thome/ENRON@enronXgate>, Barry Tycholiz/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:T=
ycholiz/ENRON@enronXgate>, Steve Walton/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Walton/ENR=
ON@enronXgate>
cc:=09=20
Subject:=09
Well, this is interesting. Are they talking about the same period during w=
hich gas costs were supposed to have been so unreasonably, and allegedly il=
legally, high due to the actions of those greedy Texas energy firms?
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index=20
published : August 10, 2001
SoCalGas Posts $223 Million in Gas-Cost Savings=20
California regulators may be scratching their heads about what to do with g=
as purchasing incentives for the state's major utilities following Southern=
California Gas Co.'s filing that claims its purchases over a 12-month peri=
od ending last June were $223 million below market prices.=20
It was the "largest amount of savings on gas costs during any one-year peri=
od in our 134-year history" of SoCalGas, which is owned by San Diego-based =
Sempra Energy, according to Anne Smith, a vice president quoted in a report=
to the company's employees.=20
Under a regulator-approved "gas cost incentive mechanism (GCIM) that has be=
en in place in recent years, the utility can apply a formula allowing it to=
share the savings between customers and shareholders." It's an incentive t=
o the utility "to take reasonable risks to keep gas costs low, while ensuri=
ng a reliable supply," SoCalGas's director of gas acquisition, Jim Harrigan=
, told employees in the recent report.=20
With this relatively embarrassing "windfall" for shareholders, the utility =
recommended to the California Public Utilities Commission in June two optio=
ns for spreading the wealth:=20
1.=09Give shareholders a relatively modest $30.8 million and make the utili=
ty's proposed adjustments to the GCIM program in future years. The modifica=
tions were agreed to many months ago in a settlement among SoCalGas; the CP=
UC; the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA); and the statewide utility cons=
umer group TURN (The Utility Reform Network); or=20
2.=09Award $106 million to the utility's shareholders, which is what SoCalG=
as says is the shareholders' share under the current GCIM formula.=20
Both options carry proposed rate increases to implement them. The first wou=
ld necessitate a 44 cents/month increase for a 12-month period, while the s=
econd alternative would require a $1.52/month hike for one year.=20
=====================================
|
4,387 |
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9527.
=====================================
Hi. I was trying to get a fix on whether there's something going on on the
Friday of your Dad's b-day to see if I need to cancel the Houston trip. What
do you think?
xoxoxxo
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/28/2001 04:01 PM -----
Nancy Sellers <[email protected]>
02/28/2001 01:34 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
It is going to be pretty casual on Friday! Sausages, polenta, and salad type
- around the kitchen table - we are pretending his birthday is the next day.
However, your presence would indeed make it more festive and birthday
celebrationy!!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:15 AM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
Eldon said that you were making dinner on Friday, the 9th, and that he was
flying a plane to pick up Cameron and Rory in Carmel. Have you guys spoken
in the last few months!?!?!? (kidding.) And don't worry about my
birthday--that's not the issue. It's Eldon's 80th--that's huge. Friday is
the 9th. So I'm just checking in to see what's up. My very strong
inclination--for a variety of reasons, but Eldon's b-day is the biggest
one--is to cancel.
Signed,
confused
Nancy
Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To:
"'[email protected]'"
ndavi.com>
<[email protected]>
cc:
02/28/2001 01:10 PM Subject: RE: FW:
Sonoma Coast Viticulture
contact
I'm not sure what Friday will bring - the party as you know (for you and
Eldon as far as I am concerned) is on Saturday - however, none of your
friends will be there except us! When would you normally get back?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:06 AM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
har-dee-har-har. I mean, will we be celebrating in some fashion. I'm
scheduled to go to Houston--I'm not kidding--but if there's something
planned, which I assume there is, then I'm going to cancel my trip to
Houston, like pronto.
Ironically,
Jeff
Nancy Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To:
"'[email protected]'"
ndavi.com>
<[email protected]>
cc:
02/27/2001 07:09 PM Subject: RE: FW:
Sonoma Coast Viticulture
contact
cooking!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:05 PM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: Re: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
You are so sweet. Thanks so much. What's new? What are we doing on the
Friday of Eldon's b-day?
Nancy Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To: "'Jeff
Dasovich'"
ndavi.com>
<[email protected]>
cc:
02/27/2001 07:06 PM Subject: FW: Sonoma
Coast Viticulture contact
Finally - here is the name of the contact
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:58 PM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
Nancy, sorry this took a while, but it will be worth it. If anybody knows
about the Sonoma Coast, it's this guy. He's done work with Flowers,
Kistler, etc. out there. His name is Greg Bjornstad (sp.?) and his number
is (707) 829-1687. He doesn't really know me from a hole in the ground but
you can "double reference" my name as Todd Graff's friend. Todd is the
winemaker at Sonoma Creek and is a good friend of mine who worked with Eric
on some projects.
=====================================
|
4,388 |
Subject: Fwd: Reuters - Calif. bill would penalize energy price gougers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11538.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/25/2001 09:46 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
04/25/2001 09:41 AM
To: "Mark Evans" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Reuters - Calif. bill would penalize energy price gougers
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Tue, 24 Apr
2001 10:19:24 -0500 -----
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
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.
=====================================
|
4,389 |
Subject: Re: ABX 128 - Windfall Profits Tax
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3985.
=====================================
One obvious question that comes to mind is: will the tax apply to the=20
"windfall" reaped by the utilities from their "retained" generation and wil=
l=20
it also include state and federal "public" power authorities (e.g., LADWP,=
=20
WAPA, etc.). I don't think that the IOUs can absorb any more costs right=
=20
about now.
Do we have any information on whether the Ds intend to grandstand this bill=
=20
on the same dates that the "special" committee (Dunn?) will be holding its=
=20
investigative hearings into wholesale power prices?
Best,
Jeff
=09Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
=0904/05/2001 12:22 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>, Mike Day <[email protected]>, B=
ev=20
Hansen <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Susan J Mara=
=20
<[email protected]>, Joseph Alamo <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman=20
<[email protected]>, Michael McDonald <[email protected]>,=20
David Parquet <[email protected]>, Rick Johnson=20
<[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin <[email protected]>, Tim=
=20
Belden <[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro <[email protected]>, Jim Steff=
es=20
<[email protected]>, Alan Comnes <[email protected]>, Chris Calger=
=20
<[email protected]>, Joe Hartsoe <[email protected]>, Donna Fulton=20
<[email protected]>, Steven Kean <[email protected]>, Karen Denn=
e=20
<[email protected]>, Beverly Aden <[email protected]>, Bill Votaw=20
<[email protected]>, Carol Moffett <[email protected]>, Debora=20
Whitehead <[email protected]>, Dennis Benevides=20
<[email protected]>, Don Black <[email protected]>,=20
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"=20
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,=20
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"=20
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]=
>,=20
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Mike D Smith <[email protected]>=
,=20
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,=
=20
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"=20
<[email protected]>, Leslie Lawner <[email protected]>, Jo=
hn=20
Neslage <[email protected]>, Ken Smith <[email protected]>, Bo=
b=20
Frank <[email protected]>, Jennifer Thome <[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: ABX 128 - Windfall Profits Tax
The following is a press release from Assembly Member Ellen Corbett
regarding her new windfall profits tax bill ABX 128 which will probably
be heard in committee following the Easter break.
For Immediate
Release
Contact: Rebecca Nieto
April 4,
2001
(916) 319-2018
Corbett Introduces Windfall Profits Tax Measure
SACRAMENTO =01) Responding to increasing electricity rates and the
continuing threat of rolling blackouts, Assembly Revenue and Taxation
Committee Chair Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) today introduced a
windfall profits tax measure intended to help restore sanity to the
pricing of electricity in California. The bill, AB 128X, imposes an
electrical power generation windfall profits tax on the windfall profits
realized by power generators, their affiliates, and the middlemen who
participate in California's energy market. However, in recognition of
the fact that some generators are cooperatively working with the state
by holding their costs down, the measure is targeted at generators whose
gross receipts significantly exceed the cost these entities incur to
produce the energy they sell.
"We cannot continue to pay the exorbitant rates that are currently being
charged in today's marketplace. Consumers and small businesses are
seeing their energy rates skyrocket. The state is spending $45 million
per day to help meet demand. We are looking toward a summer of rolling
blackouts. Yet, we continue to allow some electricity generators and
middlemen to reap enormous profits on their sales of electricity into
the state. This profiteering must stop, and AB 128X will help us ensure
that it does."
The windfall profits tax measure imposes an add-on tax equal to a set
percentage of the gross receipts derived from the sale of electrical
power into the state. The measure also targets middlemen who have been
able to game the electricity market by buying up supply and reselling it
at much higher rates. AB 128X hits these middlemen by taxing the
receipts they realize from excessively high markups.
"As Chair of a working group charged with developing a windfall profits
tax, I look forward to working with my colleagues on moving this measure
through the Legislature."
=====================================
|
4,390 |
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: Temecula, Calif., Forms
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/878.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 10/09/2000 11:12 AM
-----
[email protected]
10/07/2000 01:19 AM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: Temecula, Calif., Forms
Committee to Study Electric ...
Temecula, Calif., Forms Committee to Study Electric Deregulation
Dave Downey
?
10/06/2000
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: North County Times - Escondido,
California
Copyright (C) 2000 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World
Reporter (TM)
TEMECULA, Calif.--Shocked by San Diego County's experience with skyrocketing
electric rates this past summer, the City Council has formed a committee to
study ways of shielding Temecula residents from similar jolts when the
deregulation wave washes into Riverside County in a couple of years.
The council appointed colleagues Jeff Comerchero and Mike Naggar to serve on
the electric needs committee, scheduled to hold its first meeting later this
month.
"Deregulation is something that is supposed to be friendly to customers,"
said Mayor Jeff Stone.
It turned out to be anything but these past few months as temperatures
soared, sending demand for electricity to power air conditioners and monthly
electric bills for neighbors to the south through the roof. The rest of the
state watched in amazement as the 1.2 million customers of San Diego
Gas&Electric sweated through a long, hot summer, serving essentially as
California's guinea pigs in the statewide experiment with electric
deregulation. They were the first to feel the effects of wildly fluctuating
wholesale rates passed directly on to customers.
"We're concerned that deregulation may have that sort of effect on Temecula
and our residents, and we would like to try to avoid Temecula residents
getting a double or triple bump on their bills," Naggar said.
"The electric deregulation took San Diego officials by surprise," he said.
"They were asleep. We now know what can happen, and we don't want to be
caught asleep."
One of the things the committee will look into is whether it would make sense
for Temecula to try to contract with an electric provider to bring in
relatively cheap power for its 54,000 residents. The area is served by
Southern California Edison.
San Marcos and Chula Vista have held talks with the Enron Corp. about the
possibility of providing power to their residents to hold down rates. Those
cities are studying the experience of Palm Springs, which in 1997 contracted
with Portland Gas and Electric to provide residents with a flat rate for
electricity for five years.
Whether such an arrangement would work for Temecula is anyone's guess, Naggar
said.
"If it turns out we can't do anything, at least we've gotten everybody's
attention," he said.
Naggar said the council has yet to form a committee charged with monitoring
San Diego Gas&Electric's proposal to string new lines across huge metal
towers through Southwest County, to relieve San Diego's electric rate
explosion. Cities and communities throughout Southwest County have rallied
against the project, saying they don't want the visual blight and perceived
health threat from having fat power lines buzzing 150 feet overhead.
The San Diego-based utility is expected to name a preferred route soon.
"I get about five or six e-mails a day on the preferred route subject,"
Naggar said. "It is a hot, hot, hot issue. But there is nothing for us to do
until they make a move. If they decide to go down the middle of Temecula, I
can assure you we'll make a move. If they decide to go through the (Santa
Rosa) Plateau, I can assure you we'll discuss it."
Temecula council members have been unanimously opposed to bringing new power
lines through, or near, the city since the project was unveiled about two
months ago. And, in September, City Manager Shawn Nelson sent off a letter to
the utility expressing the city's opposition to routes through the pristine
hills of De Luz to the west and the verdant Wine Country to the east as well.
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 99
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
4,391 |
Subject: Re: Regarding Reserving the Park Hyatt for the California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1726.
=====================================
you are such a crack up - good thing I like you so much, or I'd kneecap you
the next time you are in Portland. My mother accepts your profuse apologies
and is eternally grateful!
Best,
Lysa
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 11/16/2000 01:35 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Regarding Reserving the Park Hyatt for the California
Legislative Meeting
Dear LYSA:
I can only apologize profusely.
Profuse apologies,
Jeff
Lysa Akin@ECT
11/16/2000 01:10 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Regarding Reserving the Park Hyatt for the California Legislative
Meeting
Jeff -
I am more than happy to work with the Park Hyatt to reserve a room.
However, I will only do it on the condition that you make a concerted effort
to spell my name correctly.
My mother would greatly appreciate you acknowledging the vast amounts of
drugs she was on when she filled out my birth certificate!! :-)
Consider it done.
With mucho giggles,
Lysa
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 11/16/2000 01:12 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: CHANGE OF DATE: California Legislative Meeting in San Francisco
- MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!
Lisa: Sorry, but Joseph's gone on vacation for the week. I think that the
size of the group is going to require that we do this offsite. We use the
"Park Hyatt" in San Francisco. Could you check with Paul and let him know
that I think that we need to go offsite, given the size of the crowd, and if
he agrees, could you go ahead and check into getting a room at the Park
Hyatt? As always, I'm greatly indebted. If there are any problems, or if
you have any questions, don't hesitate to give me a call.
Best,
Jeff
Lysa Akin@ECT
11/16/2000 10:37 AM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron, [email protected], Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron, Marcie Milner/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron, [email protected], Sue Nord/NA/Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron
cc: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron, Ginger
Dernehl/NA/Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT
Subject: CHANGE OF DATE: California Legislative Meeting in San Francisco -
MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!
Per Rick Shapiro, pllease be advised that the meeting referenced above has
been changed as follows:
Date: Tuesday, December 5th
Time: 9:00am - 1:30pm Pacific
Where: San Francisco Office
At this time, Paul would prefer to keep this as an internal GA meeting with
our outside lobbyists. At this time we are not inviting the Enron Business
units to attend, but please feel free to invite anyone else in the GA group
you feel should attend.
HOWEVER, if you invite someone else, please advise me so that we can ensure
we have adequate space in San Francisco to accommodate everyone. Thanks!
Melissa Cortez - please forward to Scott AND Hedy. Also, I will forward
directions to our offices to you under a separate e-mail.
Lysa Akin
503/464-7927
---------------------- Forwarded by Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT on 11/16/2000 08:35 AM
---------------------------
Lysa Akin
11/14/2000 04:52 PM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph
Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron, Marcie
Milner/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron,
[email protected], Sue Nord/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT, Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron
Subject: California Legislative Meeting in San Francisco
Please be advised that I have scheduled the above referenced meeting as
follows:
Date: Tuesday, November 28th
Time: 10:30am - 3:30pm Pacific
Where: San Francisco Office
Most of you "penciled in" this appointment when I spoke to you, please make
plans to attend!!
At this time, Paul would prefer to keep this as an internal GA meeting with
our outside lobbyists. At this time we are not inviting the Enron Business
units to attend, but please feel free to invite anyone else in the GA group
you feel should attend. HOWEVER, if you invite someone else, please advise
me so that we can ensure we have adequate space in San Francisco to
accommodate everyone. Thanks!
Melissa Cortez - please forward to Scott AND Hedy.
Jim Steffes & Marcia Linton - I am aware that Jim is on vacation the week of
the 27th. In the event that he can participate via teleconference, I will
forward a dial in number by the end of the week.
Lysa Akin
503/464-7927
=====================================
|
4,392 |
Subject: Price Gouging in CA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1346.
=====================================
Former Lawmaker Fingers Federal Agencies and LADWP in Class-Action Suit on
Price Gouging Sept 11 (California Energy Markets)
Larry Stirling, a candidate for the California state Senate seat now occupied
by Senator Dede Alpert (D-Coronado), has filed a federal lawsuit against
nearly everyone under the sun, alleging that hydro-electricity from federal
power agencies was illegally marked up and resold into California at illegal
and excessive rates. Stirling, a former state legislator in both the Assembly
and the Senate from 1980 to 1989, has been a judge at the Superior Court
level since 1989.
The suit, filed August 31 in Federal District Court for Southern California,
names a variety of defendants--including Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson,
the Western Area Power Administration, the Bonneville Power Administration,
the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, San Diego Gas & Electric, the
California Power Exchange, the California Independent System Operator and a
host of unidentified "John Doe" individuals deemed responsible for the
situation [Stirling et al. v. Richardson et al.; CU1745-W-NLS]. However, the
suit specifically alleges that LADWP engaged in price gouging by purchasing
federal power and reselling it to the CalPX and Cal-ISO at higher prices.
In particular, Stirling's complaint cites Federal Code 16 USC Section 825s,
"which provides that Secretary of Energy shall transmit and dispose of excess
power and energy in such manner as to encourage the most widespread use
thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers."
The case was filed as a class action, putting the number of plaintiffs at
more than one million--essentially all consumers of electricity in SDG&E
territory--and seeks damages that might include a refund of power prices
charged this past summer.
Richard Wildman, a San Diego attorney who represents Stirling, told
CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS, "What we reasonably hope to accomplish is to have
the parties agree that the purpose of the federal code section is that
consumers receive this low-cost energy." He said that LADWP was specifically
identified in the suit because it is "sending power through the grid and
making substantial profit off this energy."
While LADWP does not deny doing well in wholesale energy transactions this
summer, it rejects allegations of wrongdoing. Stan Snyder, assistant Los
Angeles city attorney, this week responded that the suit "frivolously" named
LADWP as a defendant. "The department does not sell federal hydro," Snyder
told CEM.
Even if the department purchased energy from WAPA or BPA, it would not be
selling the same energy at wholesale. "Hydro is reserved for consumers in Los
Angeles. The department sells excess coal and gas power. We always keep
cheaper power in the basin to sell excess power," Snyder said. He cited the
department's own Haynes, Scattergood and Valley gas-fired plants, the Mohave
and Intermountain coal projects and the Castaic pumped-hydro facility as
possible sources of excess power sold into CalPX and Cal-ISO markets.
There is no prohibition against reselling of federal power, although it is
unlikely that any California entity could make a profit off repackaging BPA
surplus energy, which, when available, is usually indexed to the CalPX import
price. In addition, BPA said it was unaware of any long-term contract to sell
to LADWP. "I think they are confusing us with WAPA," BPA spokesperson Perry
Gruber said.
Stirling's "facts do not support the lawsuit," LA's Snyder said, and the
official response from the city puts Stirling on notice that if he pursues
the case, he could be liable for sanctions.
Stirling has been making energy price hikes part of his campaign for Alpert's
seat in the California Senate. Alpert is a coauthor of recently signed
legislation to cap SDG&E retail bills (see story at [17]). In a position
statement on his Web site, Stirling said Alpert and other Democrats "voted to
butcher our power-supply system," putting San Diego consumers "at the mercy
of every producer including the venal conduct of our neighbor to the north,
Los Angeles Water and Power Department [sic] that is profiting mightily at
our distress along with the Federal Western Area Power Administration."
Stirling railed against federal power agencies and state regulators alike for
the mess. "Were there no California Public Utilities Commission and no
federal government WAPA controlling federal hydropower and no California
State Energy Commission, there would have long since been an adequate supply
ofreasonably priced energy available to the people of San Diego," he wrote
[Arthur O'Donnell].
=====================================
|
4,393 |
Subject: RE:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3398.
=====================================
I like the idea in concept, but unsure of two things:
1. What the right time is to get involved as a group? Serious settlement
discussion has not started yet, and won't before PG&E lays out its first
proposal (expected in December).
2. What common 'banner' we would join up under? With SoCal, the cause was
clearly real unbundling. For Gas Accord II, I don't think a common 'cause'
is as obvious.
Paul Amirault
V.P. Marketing [email protected]
Wild Goose Storage Inc. (403) 266-8298
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:02 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
Greetings Folks:
As you know, the Gas Accord is coming to an end and PG&E's trying to figure
out where to go from here. I would argue that what happens with PG&E is
equally, if not more, important as what happens with SoCal.
As you also know, we're faced with a retrograde PUC that, by all accounts,
longs for the "halcyon days" of command-and-control regulation. As such, I
think it would be very useful, and cost-effective, to pull together the
effective coalition we established in the SoCalGas settlement.
In that coalition, some of us contributed dollars and some contributed
experts. I think we should employ that approach again. I asked Mike Day,
who I think most agree, did a pretty good job of representing us in the
SoCal settlement, to make a proposal for representing us in the PG&E case.
Mike's proposal is attached. Finally, if there's anyone else you think we
ought to include in our coalition, please let me know.
Let me know what you think.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Best,
Jeff
***************************************************************************
Jeff:
Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition of
end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord
II
proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties in
the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements. We would propose
to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
the parties who agree to join such a coalition. In exchange for joining
the
coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on the
GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
any other useful information.
I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings, etc.
However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
partner on the case. I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD
attorneys
who would likely have some involvement in the case. Because the majority
of
this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
fees. However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
and because several potential members of the coalition are past or existing
clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for all
participants in the coalition. With this discount, these would be the
lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
proceedings will be. Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation in
the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
budgetary estimates. If you require some type of estimation sooner than
that, please let me know.
Thank you for your interest in using our services. Please
contact
me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
Mike Day, partner
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
Michael Day $300
James McTarnaghan $260
Jeanne Bennett $220
Alexandra Ozols $130
Heather Patrick, paralegal $ 85
=====================================
|
4,394 |
Subject: FW: FW: OFOs
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/160.
=====================================
FYI. You know if Tim's still at Enron? I haven't heard from him for quite some time.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:50 AM
To: Sullivan, Colleen
Subject: RE: FW: OFOs
You should contact Tim directly. There is a tariff section on each website and a search function using key words. The utilities issue reports on OFO incidents, and Tim should have those as well. Let me know if there's anything we can do.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Colleen
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:37 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: FW: OFOs
Jeff-
Should I contact Tim Hamilton, or have you already done this? Also--if you could help me find where in the websites the information is, that would be helpful. Is it just the OFO tariffs that are on the websites or is there actual data on how often they have called OFOs, when they were called, etc. also published? We need all of that to better evaluate our risks/costs of serving those customers. Thanks for your help.
Colleen
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:18 AM
To: Sullivan, Colleen; Lawner, Leslie
Subject: RE: FW: OFOs
Greetings Colleen:
I'm not sure who's still working on this and who's not, but sometime back, we did a very extensive effort with Tim Hamilton and the rest of the EES team to get all information compiled regarding OFOs behind PG&E and SoCalGas. I'm hoping that that information still exists so we can hopefully avoid recreating the wheel. If, for some reason, the information is lost, the good news is that all OFO tariffs are compiled and easily retrievable on the SoCalGas' and PG&E's websites. Please let me know how else we can help.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Colleen
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:42 AM
To: Boston, Roy; Lawner, Leslie
Cc: Migden, Janine; Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: FW: OFOs
Thank you so much for this information. It is EXTREMELY helpful to our efforts. Thank you so much for the quick response. I'll wait to hear for sure on the Chicago utilities, and hopefully on the California ones as well?? Again, thanks.
Colleen Sullivan
-----Original Message-----
From: Boston, Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Lawner, Leslie
Cc: Sullivan, Colleen; Migden, Janine; Dasovich, Jeff; Boston, Roy
Subject: Re: FW: OFOs
Leslie -- Funny you should ask. Columbia of Ohio called 51 OFO/OMO days last winter. Other Columbia companies ( C of Penn., C of VA) did likewise. Attached is a confidential draft complaint from our attorney in Ohio that I believe provides the info you seek. Also attached is the Complaint filed by Hess,et al in Pennsylvania against Columbia there. The facts and allegations are essentially the same: confiscation/interruption of banked gas during OFO; OFO called for economic, not operational reasons; heavy penalties for failure to deliver full MDQ; etc.
My recollection is that Peoples and NorthShore called few, if any OFOs last winter. Ditto for Nicor. I have a call in to those that know first hand about these latter three utilities so I'll forward that answer as soon as I receive it.
Please call if you have any questions or if can be of further assistance.
<< File: COHdftComp.DOC >> << File: HessCompl.pdf >> << File: HessCompl2.pdf >>
Leslie Lawner/ENRON@enronXgate 09/19/2001 02:29 PM To: Janine Migden/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES cc: Colleen Sullivan/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: FW: OFOs
Can you folks help me get the info on OFOs on the LDCs below to Colleen Sullivan, who is working with EES on this. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Colleen
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:17 AM
To: Lawner, Leslie
Subject: OFOs
Last week I asked you about OFOs and you requested a list of the LDCs we are most interested in. At this time (and in this order), I need any information you can give us on OFO history (frequency, actual dates, reason for OFO--system long or short?, etc.) on the following LDCs:
PG&E, Socal
NIGAS, Peoples (Chicago), Northshore
Columbia of Ohio
This is a good starting point for now. Just so you know, we need this data as we are trying to verify/set/modify (whatever you want to call it), the price curves being set by the traders reflecting LDC risk. Obviously, the frequency of OFOs will affect our risk of doing business on a particular LDC, so we need to try to compare and access charges associated with each. Any help or direction you can provide on where to get this data would be most appreciated.
=====================================
|
4,395 |
Subject: PG&E utility reorganization draws fire in Calif
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/527.
=====================================
PG&E utility reorganization draws fire in Calif
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 10 (Reuters) - PG&E Corp.'s plan to reorganize its bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric unit, California's biggest utility, is coming under fire as a bid to dodge state regulation.
Critics said that with California beginning to emerge from a two-year energy crisis triggered by a failed deregulation law that drowned the state's utilities in red ink, now is no time to abandon state oversight.
Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), called the plan "a regulatory jailbreak" and "a corporate shell game to evade proper state regulation" by transferring assets to unregulated PG&E affiliates.
The reorganization plan would split the parent company and its utility into stand-alone companies, transferring the hydro network, Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and gas and electric transmission systems to unregulated units of parent PG&E.
The utility would continue to own and operate local gas and power distribution grids serving about 13 million customers.
The plan would allow all valid creditor claims to be paid without the need for a rate increase or state bailout, said Bob Glynn, chairman, president and chief executive of PG&E.
It would provide creditors with about $9.1 billion in cash and $4.1 billion in notes.
EYE ON HYDRO SYSTEM
One of the concerns arising from the plan is how Pacific Gas & Electric would continue to manage its hydroelectric properties, which make up the world's largest privately held hydropower system.
Elected officials from 28 counties in PG&E's sprawling hydro watershed in central and northern California will meet Friday to weigh actions on the reorganization plan filed at the San Francisco federal bankruptcy court Sept. 20.
The Regional Council of Rural Counties is worried about who will safeguard the environmental health of the hydro system's rivers and lakes that are the foundation for fishing, boating and tourism in an area that sprawls across about two-thirds of the state, council vice president Wes Lujan told Reuters.
PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne said the hydro system, nuclear reactors and transmission systems would continue to be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The utility also would continue to get power from plants it now owns under a 12-year deal at 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
But State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he is looking closely at the plan because of "serious concerns the utility is seeking to evade further scrutiny by the CPUC" and avoid state laws on the asset transfers.
Lockyer said that in the past, PG&E had used CPUC oversight as a shield against federal scrutiny.
Despite PG&E's claim that the CPUC has no jurisdiction on the transfer of power and transmission assets to the parent, CPUC chief counsel Gary Cohen said the agency's approval is required under state law.
'FIRE SALE PRICES'
"PG&E's goal is clear. They want to transfer most of the utility's valuable assets to an affiliate company, at fire sale prices, so that they will no longer be subject to any state regulation. It is a deregulation plan, not a reorganization plan," Cohen said.
"PG&E's plan conflicts with California's interest to have a more stable and regulated energy system. Deregulation has failed the public, and we will look at every opportunity to put down this attempt to solve the failure of deregulation with more deregulation," said Doug Heller, of consumer advocate The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
PG&E's Tremayne said the plan makes the most sense for California because units of PG&E would continue to own and manage power production and transmission.
Tremayne said, however, the reorganization plan does not bar a future sale to another company.
PG&E's plan would give the utility $4.5 billion from the asset transfers to help pay off about $13 billion in debts, including $9 billion in unrecovered power purchase costs.
The CPUC's Cohen and consumer groups said PG&E should receive far more than $4.5 billion from the assets.
They point to the value of the hydro network. Last fall, the utility dropped a plan to sell the hydro system to its parent for $2.8 billion because the system was "undervalued in today's market" and could fetch a much higher price through an auction.
The PG&E utility and Edison International's Southern California Edison utility amassed billions of dollars of debt because the deregulation law prevented them from passing steep wholesale power prices to their customers.
SoCal Edison and the CPUC reached a deal Oct. 2 to keep the utility out of the bankruptcy court and pay off its creditors.
=====================================
|
4,396 |
Subject: SF and Tokyo
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2283.
=====================================
Here is a follow-up proposal from Professor Littlechild, after his San
Francisco/Tokyo trips. He is inquiring as to whether we would want to retain
him to do some rebuttal to Ruff/Hogan/et al on retail markets importance. I
am not championing him, and both Nick and Jeff have had a chance to gain the
measure of the felow. He has come to his views a bit belatedly, for a
regulator who was in the chair for 9 years, but over here he is a highly
respected academic, and I might still think about using him in Europe for
just this purpose. His low-key style will go dwon well, and his views will
be respected. Any use for this type of work in your markets, let's discuss.
Otherwise, I might let him know that he is free to consult for a Japanese
firm, which does not trouble me, as I think he holds views that would find
their way into Japanese thinking in a way that would be a net benefit for us,
rather than losing an ally. Look forward to hearing from you. thanks mcs
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT on 06/12/2000
17:00 ---------------------------
"Stephen Littlechild" <[email protected]> on 04/12/2000
16:49:17
To: "Mark Schroeder" <[email protected]>
cc: "Bridget Paveley" <[email protected]>
Subject: SF and Tokyo
Dear Mark
?
Just back from Japan and sorting out affairs.?I had a good meeting with your
colleagues in the Tokyo office on Friday.? They are very well informed about
developments there, and provided an excellent analysis of the situation.? I
suspect your colleagues in San Francisco are equally well informed, though I
was not yet able to meet them individually as you know.? In meetings with
regulators and companies I was also able to?put the case for full retail
competition in both markets, and for creating the situations in which this
would be possible.? As far as I can gather, this would be consistent with
the arguments that Enron has been putting.
?
It strikes me that the regulatory authorities in both areas are looking for
guidance.? No doubt your colleagues are submitting advice in various
appropriate ways.? I'm not sure how much of this is written down or
published.? I have seen papers and testimonies submitted to regulatory
commissions, and published in journals such as the Electricity Journal in
the US, by people such as Larry Ruff and Bill Hogan.? They are in favour of
competition in principle, but it seems to be a rather regulated form of
competition, preferably in?a tightly regulated Pool, and one which regards
retail competition and trading as rather marginal.??I have not seen much
published in the way of counter arguement.
?
If you are looking for an area that we might develop together, the
possibility of a public counter argument to these commentators might be a
useful one. That might also extend to rebutting the arguements for hard
price caps on generation, as adversely affecting the prospects for trading
as well as for new entry into generation. And it might extend to rebutting
the arguments of these same people against bilateral trading instead of a
compulsory Pool, eg concerning the devleopments of NETA in E&W. I note that
FERC's recomendations in California move in this direction, but Hogan has
mostly rubbished this and argued for something else. Finally, there are the
issues surrounding nodal pricing and flowgates, which I do not pretend to be
an expert on, but where I suspect that Hogan et al give too little weight to
the implications for trading. I'm sure that your people are well up on these
issues, and able to put the case themselves.? What I could bring would be
partly the experience and authority of a previous regulator.? But also the
rethinking about economics, and relating this to modern developments in
economics (both Austrian ideas and transactions cost economics), that I think
is necessary to shift the ground on which the others are fighting.
?
Let me know if you would like to take this forward.? I should say that I was
asked if I would join in a bid to provide advice to one or more of the large
incumbent electricity companies in Japan.? We agreed that this would
probably be incompatible with advising Enron, so I said that I would defer
any decision until I had spoken to you.
?
In the meantime, many thanks for helping to fund both trips, and indeed
making them possible.? You kindly agreed to cover one day's fee in each
country plus the balance of unrecovered?air fare to Berkeley.? I am asking
my secretary Bridget to invoice you accordingly.
?
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
?
Best wishes
Stephen
?
?
=====================================
|
4,397 |
Subject: Re: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California's Energy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8405.
=====================================
I met with Bob Rubin last week, and the CA energy situation was an item we=
=20
discussed. I debriefed Rick on the conversation last week. I will add=20
further comment in our next phone call. Steve's observation is a good one=
. =20
Bob and Larry are very close, but they differ on some of the long-term=20
solutions needed here. In the meantime, Jeff, I will call you to get more=
=20
context on how the conversations with Tyson started. I worked with her=20
during the Clinton Administration. Thanks=20
=09Steven J Kean
=0901/21/2001 05:24 PM
=09=09
=09=09 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
=09=09 cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, =
Linda=20
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
=09=09 Subject: Re: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California'=
s Energy=20
Crisis
I think there is merit in pursuing this. A couple of comments:
It may be unduly complicated to get customers to provide the funding. =20
Perhaps we should focus on the banks instead. The deal might be further=20
funding in exchange for legislative and regulatory concessions on rates,=20
transmission and generation siting and the rest of the items you outline.
Rubin would be great to have, but having watched Summers in action I'm not=
=20
sure we need another ex-treas. Summers is superb, up-to-speed, and=20
apparently willing to work on this. Linda -- how would Larry feel if we=20
brought in his ex-boss (I know they're buddies but does Summers really need=
=20
the help?).
Need to keep an eye on the ball for large customers-- many of whom are ours=
. =20
they will continue to need some access to better rates. Perhaps the propos=
al=20
could be converted to cash in exchange for demand reductions.
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0901/20/2001 10:54 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J=20
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENR=
ON
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California's En=
ergy=20
Crisis
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/20/2001 10:52 PM -----
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0901/20/2001 10:51 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], [email protected]
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California's En=
ergy=20
Crisis
Dean Tyson:
It was a pleasure to see you again today. Phil, it was a pleasure to meet y=
ou=20
and I look forward to working together. Since time is of the essence, I=20
wanted to summarize where we left off at today=01,s meeting regarding Calif=
ornia=01,
s energy crisis. That summary is attached. I've also attached three=20
articles from the business section of today's Chronicle that arguably bolst=
er=20
our arguments for adopting the approach that we discussed at today's meetin=
g.
Given the fact that the legislative process is moving rapidly, bankruptcy =
is=20
a daily threat, and Dean Tyson will be attending the meetings in Davos, it=
=20
appears that our window of opportunity is very small. It seems that succes=
s=20
requires a meeting of the principals by the end of the week, if not sooner.=
=20
The chances of success are obviously limited, but I think that we agreed th=
at=20
all concerned have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking a shot.=
=20
Your offer to help in the effort obviously increases the likelihood of=20
success and is greatly appreciated. =20
My apologies in advance if I have mischaracterized any of the points made a=
t=20
the meeting. It represents a =01&first cut,=018 it will undoubtedly change=
as the=20
details get worked out, and I=01,m sure I=01,ve missed something. So pleas=
e don=01,t=20
hesitate to edit the draft.
Please keep in mind that I have not had a chance to discuss this proposal=
=20
internally. As such, I can=01,t yet commit Enron to the specifics of the=
=20
proposal. But I=01,m confident that the company can support something akin=
to=20
this structure and can let you and Phil know first thing Monday.
In addition, given the political environment in California, Enron has playe=
d=20
a constructive role by providing low-key, behind the scenes advice and=20
analysis to policy makers. That approach seems preferable in this effort a=
s=20
well.
Finally, Dean Tyson, I mentioned that Linda Robertson heads-up our Washingt=
on=20
D.C. office. If she can help in any way, please don=01,t hesitate to let m=
e=20
know. Both of you should feel free to call me at home over the weekend to=
=20
discuss things further. My home phone is 415.621.8317.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
4,398 |
Subject: ENRON BROADBAND SERVICES LAUNCHES ONLINE BANDWIDTH TRADING IN
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9496.
=====================================
fyi.
----- Forwarded by Lara Leibman/Enron Communications on 02/27/01 07:35 PM=
=20
-----
=09PR & Marketing
=09Sent by: EBS Announcements
=0902/27/01 01:35 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: All EBS
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: ENRON BROADBAND SERVICES LAUNCHES ONLINE BANDWIDTH TRADING =
IN EUROPE
Anita Cullen
Enron Broadband Services=20
+44 (0) 20 7783 2384
ENRON BROADBAND SERVICES LAUNCHES ONLINE BANDWIDTH TRADING IN EUROPE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, February 27,2001
LONDON =01) Enron Broadband Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron Co=
rp.=20
(NYSE: ENE), announced today the launch of online bandwidth trading in=20
Europe. Bandwidth transactions that used to take months to close can now be=
=20
concluded in minutes, creating wholesale market efficiencies.
Bandwidth trading is carried out via the EnronOnline trading platform. =20
Launched in November 1999 to handle the trading of Enron=01,s natural gas, =
oil,=20
electricity and other commodities, EnronOnline is the world=01,s largest=20
business-to-business e-commerce website, currently handling over 3,850=20
transactions with a notional value of over $2.6 billion, each day. =20
The easy-to-use, customisable site enables registered customers to log on a=
nd=20
buy and sell bandwidth in just a few clicks. STM-1 capacity is available,=
=20
with contract durations of between three and 12 months and forward delivery=
=20
ranging from two to 14 months. Once a transaction is closed, settlement and=
=20
provisioning are handled offline.=20
To provide the physical infrastructure to enable bandwidth trading, Enron h=
as=20
installed pooling points, or switching and interconnection facilities at=20
selected locations throughout Europe, through which connections between=20
bandwidth buyers and sellers can be established and monitored. To further=
=20
facilitate the commoditisation of bandwidth, Enron has also developed=20
standard terms and conditions which provide firm start dates and service=20
level agreements backed by liquidated damages.=20
=01&Enron=01,s online bandwidth trading service is not an exchange or bulle=
tin=20
board. Instead, it satisfies orders at a quoted price with Enron acting as=
=20
the principal,=018 said Marcello Romano, vice president, Bandwidth Trading,=
=20
Enron Broadband Services, Europe.
=01&The last three months have marked a turning point in the development of=
this=20
market in Europe. Participants are waking up to the value of firm service=
=20
level agreements and the flexibility offered through bandwidth trading and=
=20
risk management solutions. The best efforts service associated with this=20
market is finally being challenged.=018
###
Editor=01,s Notes
About Enron=20
Enron Broadband Services is a leading provider of high quality, high=20
bandwidth delivery and application services. The company=01,s business mod=
el=20
combines the power of the Enron Intelligent Network, Enron=01,s Broadband=
=20
Operating System, bandwidth trading and intermediation services, and=20
high-bandwidth applications to fundamentally improve the experience and=20
functionality of the Internet. Enron=01,s Broadband Operating System allow=
s=20
application developers to dynamically provision bandwidth for the quality o=
f=20
service necessary to deliver broadband content. Enron is also creating a=
=20
market for bandwidth that will allow network providers to scale to meet the=
=20
demands required by increasingly complex applications. Enron Broadband=20
Services can be found on the Web at www.enron.net.=20
EnronOnline (www.EnronOnline.com) offers customers a free Internet-based=20
system for conducting wholesale transactions with Enron as principal. =20
EnronOnline provides real-time prices for bandwidth, power, natural gas,=20
coal, weather products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and other commoditie=
s=20
in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Since its launch in November 1999,=20
EnronOnline has expanded to include approximately 1,120 products and has=20
completed over 685,000 transactions with a total notional value exceeding=
=20
$420 billion.
Enron is one of the world=01,s leading electricity, natural gas and=20
communications companies. The company, with revenues of $101 billion in=20
2000, markets electricity and natural gas, delivers physical commodities an=
d=20
financial and risk management services to customers around the world, and h=
as=20
developed an intelligent network platform to facilitate online business. =
=20
Fortune magazine has named Enron =01&America=01,s Most Innovative Company=
=018 for six=20
consecutive years. Enron=01,s Internet address is www.enron.com. The stoc=
k is=20
traded under the ticker symbol =01&ENE.=018
=====================================
|
4,399 |
Subject: The Original Advantage #e12004
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11530.
=====================================
[IMAGE]
April 24, 2001
Can't read this email? Click here
Issue#: e12004
PROVANTAGE Customer: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the?
Original Advantage Click here
(Do Not Reply to this email)
Products that give you the Professional Advantage!
[IMAGE]
New Version!
Pervasive.SQL 2000i for NT/2000
By Pervasive Software
Spawned from the legendary Btrieve database, Pervasive.SQL 2000i is an
amazingly usable and versatile database. Packed inside its user-friendly skin
is a high-performance heart, making Pervasive.SQL 2000i not only easy to use,
but incredibly powerful and reliable. Pervasive.SQL is flexible enough to
power traditional and Web-based applications across a full spectrum of
hardware and software platforms.
10-USER??$939.45
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Synergy II PCI 32MB 2D/3D Vidadpt Open GL
By ELSA Inc
The ELSA SynergyII is the powerful graphics solution for applications in
professional multi-screen graphics such as visualization, graphics
processing, ...More
??$221.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New Version!
WordPerfect Office 2002 Standard
By Corel
Experience the latest performance innovations of the office suite you know
and love with WordPerfect Office 2002 Standard Edition. This powerful
software ...More
??$149.00
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Onetouch 8650/ADF Flatbed Scanner
By Visioneer
The Visioneer OneTouch technology is changing the way people think about and
use scanners, thanks to its revolutionary integration of hardware and
software. ...More
??$257.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New Version!
Easy CD Creator 5.0 Platinum
By Roxio, Inc.
Upgrade to Easy CD Creator 5 Platinum and go way beyond the software that
came with your CD recorder. Now you can burn and share anything on CD - your
...More
??$77.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Switch 8-Port 10/100 8-RJ45
By D-Link
SPECIAL PROMO! LIMITED TIME!
Purchase a DSS-8+ and receive 2 FREE DFE-530TX!(Must Purchase DLNS00U to
receive the 2 FREE DFE-530TX) ...More
??$71.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
AirConnect 11 Mbps Wireless PCI Card
By 3Com
The 3Com AirConnect 11 Mbps Wireless PCI network interface card (NIC) gives
you the option of networking PCs at your office or home, without the time and
...More
??$223.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
New!
S600 Color BubbleJet Printer 15/10ppm 2400x1200dpi
By Canon
Professional Printing For Everyone.
Take your work and home projects to the next level. The S600 Color Bubble Jet
Printer offers ...More
??$202.25
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
All-In-Wonder Radeon AGP 32MB NTSC
By ATI Technologies
32MB Of DDR RAM, Fast 3D Graphics & DVD playback make it the best
price/performance in its class. With All-in-Wonder Radeon, capture and edit
MPEG-2 Video ...More
??$245.89
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
CM615 17in/16.1v 22mm 1280x1024 65HZ
By Hitachi
Hitachi's CM615 provides sharp focus, high brightness and a tight dot pitch
of 0.23mm horizontal, 0.14 mm vertical to provide the best value for any 17"
...More
??$177.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
PalmPix Zoom Digital Camera for Palm
By Kodak
The easiest way to make your Palm Handheld a digital camera.
Whether it's a must for business or just for fun, the KODAK PalmPix Camera
adds ...More
??$83.95
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Microsoft Press
Microsoft Press books help you achieve maximum results with all your
Microsoft software.
?
?
Web Address: www.PROVANTAGE.com?
?Toll Free: 800-336-1166???? Fax: 330-494-5260???? email:
[email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | FREE Catalog
,2001 PROVANTAGE Corporation, 7249 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720
Products, prices, terms, conditions, or offers may change at any time.
Company and/or product names are generally trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective companies. Some promotional text may be
copyrighted by the product's manufacturer.?
The Original Advantage promotional email is delivered only to customers of
PROVANTAGE Corporation. PROVANTAGE customers have purchased products in the
past and submitted their email address as part of the checkout process. Or,
customers have entered their name in the "Add to Email List" box on the
PROVANTAGE.com home page. Any customer may unsubscribe from the list at any
time by going to http://www.provantage.com/unsubscribe.htm. The email address
is permanently removed from additional promotional electronic mailings, and
will not be reactivated unless requested by the customer.??
[IMAGE]
BizRate Customer Certified (GOLD) Site
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.