|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Alan Comnes X-To: Bernadette Hawkins, Jeffrey T Hodge, aw_turner@pgn.com@SMTP@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders, Elizabeth Sager, Christi L Nicolay, Ban Sharma, Paul Kaufman, Susan J Mara, Jeff Dasovich, Dave Perrino, Tim Belden, Steve C Hall, Linda Robertson, Ray Alvarez, Sarah Novosel, Lora Sullivan, "Gary Fergus (E-mail)" <gfergus@brobeck.com<@SMTP@enronXgate, "Ron Carroll (E-mail)" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com<@SMTP@enronXgate, Robert Frank, Tim Heizenrader X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Oct2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf If you've been wondering where Davis's $9 billion "overcharge number" number comes from, attached is the apparent basis of the number, which was from a study prepared by Hildebrandt of the CAISO. It was apparently released on the CAISO site on 6/21. Note that the $9billion includes bilateral trade sold to any party. However, Hildebrandt cannot say who the supplier is unless DWR, CAISO, or the PX was the buyer (for those buyers he presumably has detailed data). Thus, he can ascribe overcharges to specific jurisdictional generators for only $5.4 billion of the $9billion total. He does not show what specific parties are attrributable to the $5.4 billion. In an earlier study on just ISO R/T "strategic bidding", supplier names were released inadvertantly by CAISO. Finally, as in previous CAISO studies, a significant fraction of overcharges (approx $3 billion) comes from before the refund-effective date of 10/1/00. Alan Comnes
|