Re: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx

I couldn't get my computer to pull AB 189 from home. I did talk to Counihan.
His view is that the bill does not repeal the operative provisions of AB 1890
for DA, Sec 365. As I mentioned it does repeal the whereas part, Sec 330.
He agrees, however, that as soon as it passes, the CPUC will implement ABX 1
and vote to kill DA. AReM put out a press statement on the senate passage of
AB 2X78. I think you may have received it.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854

Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
07/20/2001 10:28 PM

To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com<, hgovenar@govadv.com
Subject: Re: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx

I realize that this note is likely stale, but, FYI, Ms Kassandra's is
mistaken. SB 78 ain't silent on DA. It kills it, period.

I sure hope that ARM is seriously opposed to the bill.

Best,
Jeff

Susan J Mara
07/20/2001 02:14 PM

To: sgovenar@govadv.com
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx

Aren't we opposing ABXX 78?

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/20/2001 12:12 PM -----

Kassandra Gough <kgough@calpine.com<
07/20/2001 12:09 PM

To: "'arem@electric.com'" <arem@electric.com<
cc:
Subject: Recommend Oppose of SB 78xx

Hi everyone,

I know that AReM is not opposing SB 78xx (Polanco/Sher) because it is silent
on direct access; however, I want to recommend that the position be changed
to oppose. I have spoken with Norm and he asked that I send this out to for
comment.
Please look at the bill and specifically Section 13, on Page 35 (see below).
I believe that if this bill were to become law direct access in SCE's,
PG&E's and SDG&E territories (I believe the section stands alone so it
wouldn't matter if PG&E accepted the same deal or not) would be dead. In
summary, the bill would essentially allow any IOU to go back into the
generation business and require the CPUC to approve rates that are
sufficient to cover their reasonable cost of operation, investment and
provide for a reasonable rate of return (I don't believe this is cost-based
rates). The CPUC is given broad latitude over conducting proceedings,
issuing orders or anything else that may be necessary to accomplish the goal
of assuring that service provided by IOU's is adequate. Section 13 will
kill competition, eliminate direct access and create new stranded costs.
And, to add insult to injury the State Power Authority may be their partners
in crime.
As to the politics of the bill it was just amended to be a majority vote
bill. Burton has said it is this bill or nothing. SCE is opposing the bill
but there are several lobbyist who think this is all an ambush and SCE would
love this bill.

Please comment on my above analysis. I would love to be wrong on this one.

Kasssandra Gough
Government and Legislative Manager
Calpine
SEC. 13. Section 454.10 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:
454.10. (a) In order to assure that the service provided by electrical
corporations is adequate, the commission may require each electrical
corporation that provides distribution service to make direct investments in
electric generation facilities whose output is dedicated to serve the
customers connected to its distribution grid. (b) After a hearing, the
commission shall approve rates sufficient to enable the electrical
corporation to recover its reasonable costs of operation, its reasonable
investment in the electric generation facilities and a reasonable return on
its investment, in accordance with Section 451. © An electric corporation
may meet the obligation described in this section by entering into projects
for electric generation facilities jointly with the California Consumer
Power and Conservation Financing Authority. (d) The commission may conduct
proceedings, enter orders and undertake such actions as it considers
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section.
<<sb 78xx -Polanco.pdf<<

- sb 78xx -Polanco.pdf