|
|
Enron Mail |
I think our discussion about an incremental charge applying to customers of
all statuses was with regard to our speculation on how the "new CTC" payback mechanism would work, not San Diego. I think the payback mechanism is still speculation. There are many differing alternatives. That's my recollection. From: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/29/2001 11:05 AM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES Subject: RE: San Diego Update I've have talked to Harry. I think I just misunderstood. -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:32 AM To: Williams, Robert C. Cc: Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James; Sunde, Marty; Sharp, Vicki Subject: RE: San Diego Update I don't recall Lay saying that the increase should apply to DA customers. We should discuss further just to make sure that we're all on the same page. Best, Jeff Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate 05/24/2001 09:26 AM To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: RE: San Diego Update Harry, Marty Sunde, Jeff Dasovich and I were on a trip with Ken Lay last week. I understood from Marty that Ken may believe that all customers, including direct access, should pay the increase you mention. Marty? This was encouraging from a litigation exposure standpoint because, to the extent all consumers are treated alike, our DA customers who were resourced to utility service cannot claim to have been disadvantaged by our action. The converse is also true: if they have to pay because they were put back on utility service they may try to pass that cost through to us. To the extent that any increase is to pay back DWR for buying power 2/1/01-3/31/02, and those on DA are not required to pay this, EES could have a substantial exposure to its customers. Maybe we need to modify our strategy to take this into account. -----Original Message----- From: Kingerski, Harry Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:48 AM To: Sunde, Marty; Benevides, Dennis; Dotson, Marcus; Williams, Robert C.; Frazier, Lamar; Stoness, Scott; Johnson, Tamara Cc: Lawner, Leslie; Steffes, James; Neustaedter, Robert; Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff Subject: San Diego Update SDGE's Advice Letter filing confirms that the ABX143 rate freeze of 6.5 cents does not apply to direct access. In hearings on SDGE's potential rate increase for large customers: SDGE has proposed to allocate all retained generation to small customers (below 100 kw). Large customers would be served by DWR (or be direct access). It's apparent several parties have major problems with this. It is interesting that SDGE has calculated the expected rate increase under their plan as 2.86 cents. If large customers are allocated a piece of retained generation, the increase goes up to 2.99 cents. In the latter case, large customers retain a CTC (related to QF contracts and other long term stranded costs) that they would lose in the former case. Our involvement is to get an order 1) excluding DA from any rate increase (the proposed 2.86 cents) 2) excluding DA from any surcharge related to undercollection from the rate freeze (an amount that is not known at this point) 3) prorating the surcharge related to undercollection if the customer switches from DA to bundled service during the rate freeze period 4) ensuring there is a return to market pricing once the rate freeze is over. PUC decisions on these issues are expected June 28. There is no discussion of restricting movement between bundled service and DA. On our issues noted above, #1, 2, 4 have high probability of success; # 3 is 50/50.
|