|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of=
=20 D.01-05-064 which ABAG POWER filed on July 13.? On behalf of ABAG, I would = =20 like to solicit your support of this petition.? The decision in question is= =20 the Commission's May 15 decision where it approved the rate design for the = =20 three-cent rate increase.?=20 ? You may recall that the decision approved a 12-month surcharge for all =20 bundled service customers to make up for the revenue which PG&E and SCE did= =20 not recover during the interim period between the March 27 issuance of =20 D.01-03-082 and the subsequent issuance of the May 15 decision.? You also = =20 know that the May decision provided specifically that DA customers were NOT= =20 to be subject to the rate increase.=20 ? The ABAG petition for modification seeks to have the Commission clarify th= at=20 DA customers who received DA service during the interim period between the = =20 two decisions should not be subject to the one-year sucharge, even if they= =20 were subsequently returned to bundled service.? The arguments supporting= =20 this position are as follows: Direct access customers were specifically exempted from the=20 procurement-related rate increase because they do not receive procurement= =20 service.? They should therefore be similarly exempted from the12-month=20 procurement surcharge, even if they subsequently returned to bundled=20 service.? =20 The inability of PG&E to pay all amounts due and owing under the PX credit= =20 have caused the budgets of ABAG POWER Members to be placed under significa= nt=20 financial stress.? The Member public agencies have suffered extreme=20 financial hardship.? The application of the 12-month procurement surcharge= =20 has added to that burden unnecessarily. In a separate proceeding (draft Resolution E-3726),? the Commission has=20 expressed its intent to =01&guard against inequities=018 for direct access= =20 customers of SDG&E.? ABAG POWER asks simply that the Commission afford=20 similar protection to the direct access customers of PG&E who did not=20 receive bundled procurement service during the interval between the March= =20 and May Decisions.?=20 Moreover, in addition to being inequitable, the application of the=20 procurement surcharge to non-procurement direct access customers would be= =20 discriminatory and would cause the utilities to violate the=20 anti-discrimination provisions of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 453(= a)=20 and 453©. ABAG POWER would very much appreciate the support of ESPs and other market= =20 participants at the Commission.? Under Rule 47(f) of the Commission's Rule= s=20 of Practice and Procedure, "Responses to petitions for modification must b= e=20 filed and served within 30 days of the date that the petition was served,= =20 unless the administrative law judge sets a different date. Responses must = be=20 served on the petitioner and on all? parties who were served with the=20 petition and must comply with the requirements of Rules 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,= =20 and 2.5."? Filings sooner than that would be appreciated.? Please give me = a=20 call or email if you are willing to file in support of the ABAG petition.?= =20 Thanks very much?for your consideration of our request. ? 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 douglass@energyattorney.com - 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc
|