|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: Karen Denne, Janel Guerrero, skean@enron.com, James D Steffes, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman, Richard Shapiro, Susan J Mara, Sandra McCubbin, Harry Kingerski, Harry Kingerski, Jennifer Thome, Robert Neustaedter X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf FYI. Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group ain't happy about the rate increas= e=20 (surprise). ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/10/2001 04:56 PM ----- =09"Carla Reddick" <creddick@svmg.org< =0905/10/2001 04:44 PM =09Please respond to creddick =09=09=20 =09=09 To: <creddick@svmg.org< =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: FW: PUC Rate Proposal Disaster! Please call and fax PUC=20 Commissioners Brown, Duque and Lynch (info below) SVMG Member Companies: We URGENTLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT in sending a strong message today and tomorrow to the PUC that the proposed rate proposal is unacceptable to SVMG employers, its workers and families. We have only until 6 pm this evening to submit formal comments for the proposed rate structure just this morning. A brief analysis is below. Please call or fax the following Public Utilities Commissioners IMMEDIATELY with our urgent message. Please and let me know if you and your organization have done so. Also, don't forget to avail yourself of one last opportunity to directly meet with the PUC at a public hearing regarding this rate proposal at the Doubletree Hotel tomorrow (Friday May 12, 2001) at 3:00, 2050 Gateway Place. To participate you must arrive early and sign-in to speak. A membe= r of the Public Advisor's Office will be there for assistance. To get more advice about participation at the hearing contact the PUC's Public Advisory Office at 415-703-2782. Thank you for your help at this critical time. Justin Bradley Director of Energy Programs 408 501 7852 ********************* Geoffrey Brown - Phone 415 703 1407; Fax 415 703 1294 (Perhaps the key swin= g vote, most important focus of advocacy) Henry M. Duque - Phone 415 703 3700; Fax 415 703 3352; (Historically on sid= e of business but needs encouragement) Carl Wood - Phone 415 703 2440; Fax 415 703 2532 (Most anti-business votin= g record; probably intractable) President Loretta Lynch - 415 703 2444; Fax 415 703 1758 (Unlikely to change vote from public stance but worth a try based on past relationships and connection to Gov. Davis) ************** The PUC unveiled their proposal with the following rate allocations: Residential customers are protected with an average rate increase of 17%, Small commercial users 45% Large energy users up to from 50 to 75%. This does not include the 1 cent rate increase proposed in January which would increase the large energy users rate by 100%. A fair and proportiona= l rate increase would be an average increase of 34% for all customers. President Lynch admitted that this may not be enough, and that additional rate increases could be required in the future. In protecting the residential rate classes, the PUC is shifting approximately $1 Billion from the residential rates to all other customer classes. It is important that we all SVMG member companies communicate to our PUC Commissioners the danger of protecting residential rates where the use of power is more discretionary and flexible than for employers. Unfairly high business rates decrease productive electricity use with subsequent loss of goods and services and JOBS. Protecting the residential rate class is bad policy because it guts the incentive for many residents to conserve. SVMG understands that prices must rise significantly to accommodate the cos= t of electricity. It is regrettable. But any plan must be equitable and proportional between all rate classes with no cross subsidization. The SVMG press release form this morning is below. The PUC release is in the link below. The PUC release. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/6967.htm *************** P.U.C. IS A.W.O.L. ON PROPOSED RATE INCREASE=01,S EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY AND EFFORTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION For Immediate Release: Contact: Michelle Montague-Bruno May 10, 2001 (408) 501-7853 =01&The disproportional rate increases proposed by the PUC will devastate t= he state and potentially the nation=01,s economy,=018 said Carl Guardino, pres= ident and CEO of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, in response to electricity rate increases being suggested by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and its President Loretta Lynch. The PUC president=01,s proposal has three critical flaws: 1. It undermines the Governor and the Legislature=01,s conservation plan;= which already tilts heavily toward residential customers, because the PUC proposa= l provides individuals with no incentives to conserve. 2. It is devastating to California=01,s economy; which will cripple Calif= ornia companies and every working family that depends on a healthy business climate to maintain jobs. 3. Coupled with the economic downturn California employers already face, this Commission is either insensitive or ignorant to the further loss of jobs this proposal could create. =01&The PUC may think that by shielding residential customers from paying o= ur proportionate share that they are doing everyone a favor; yet it=01,s prett= y hard to pay your bills when a disproportionate plan forces your employer ou= t of business or out of California,=018 said Guardino. Yesterday, the PUC proposed raising rates for some employers by 50 to 75 percent, which would be the second increase handed to the industrial business community this year. For many employers, the recently proposed rate increases will equate to a 100 percent increase in electric bills in less than five months. =01&This is irresponsible behavior at a time when the state=01,s economy is already reeling from an economic downturn that has hurt employers and lost jobs for working families,=018 said Guardino. =01&Many companies, including Roche Pharmaceuticals, have had very aggressi= ve energy reduction programs in place for several years, which will continue. To further cut consumption - in order to pay for a non-proportional and destructive rate increase -- for some employers, could mean cutting into their workforce, or leaving the area all together,=018 said Dr. James Woody= , President of Roche Pharmaceuticals R&D in Palo Alto and Chairman of the Board of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. =01&We want to do our fai= r share in paying for rate increases, but the disproportionate nature of this proposal could be devastating to employers. We need a rate structure that will allow employers to thrive and help pull us out of this economic downturn.=018 The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group understands and acknowledges the nee= d to raise electric rates to help minimize blackouts, which will protect the public=01,s health and safety. However, to achieve desired conservation an= d fairness, it is essential that all Californians share proportionally in rat= e adjustments. =01&Proportional rate increases should be implemented with no rate shifting between classes of energy users. Member companies of SVMG are committed to being part of the solution, as we work together to conserve power, retain our workforce and ensure a healthy economy,=018 said Guardino. =01&Apparently, the PUC is out of touch with working families, conservation= or jobs in California,=018 said Guardino. =01&It=01,s a naive proposal. It a= ssumes we can put a firewall between working families and jobs their employers provide; but instead this notion threatens the livelihoods of California workers and businesses.=018
|