|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks. 415.782.7854. Better or worse than ours?
Dorothy Rothrock <drothrock@cmta.net< 07/11/2001 11:54 AM To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com cc: Ann.Cohn@sce.com, "'Barbara Barkovich (E-mail)'" <brbarkovich@earthlink.net<, "Dominic DiMare (E-mail)" <dominic.DiMare@calchamber.com<, "'John Fielder (E-mail)'" <fieldejr@sce.com<, "'Phil Isenberg (E-mail)'" <isenberg@hmot.com<, "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'" <jdasovic@enron.com<, "'Keith McCrea (E-mail)'" <kmccrea@sablaw.com<, "'Linda Sherif (E-mail)'" <lys@a-klaw.com<, "'Linda Sherif (E-mail 2)'" <lysherif@yahoo.com<, "'Gary Schoonyan (E-mail)'" <schoongl@sce.com<, "'John White (E-mail)'" <vjw@cleanpower.org<, dhunter@s-k-w.com, Rick.Simpson@asm.ca.gov Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison Bailout Plan I have the plan.....who wants it? send your fax number (and $10 for shipping and handling....just kidding) D Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: < Folks: Please see highlighted sections. Anyone seen Byron's plan? Know < where it's headed, etc.? < < Best, < Jeff < ************************************************************************* < Power purchase bills exceed $7.5 billion < < Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News < BY MARK GLADSTONE, NOAM LEVEY AND DION NISSENBAUM < < Mercury News Sacramento Bureau < < SACRAMENTO -- Six months after jumping into the electricity business, the < Davis administration on Monday provided the first detailed glimpse of < California's daily power purchases, showing more than $5 billion in < payments, much of it to government-owned utilities and private companies < that state officials have branded as price gougers. < < The state spent an additional $2.5 billion on a variety of contracts and < other electricity services designed to stabilize the volatile energy < markets, according to documents that the state agreed to release last week < amid a legal dispute over public access to the data. < < In roughly the first five months of the year, the state shelled out $1.2 < billion to Atlanta-based Mirant, the most any company was paid for < electricity, followed by $1 billion to Powerex, the marketing arm of BC < Hydro in British Columbia. It also paid $331 million to the Los Angeles < Department of Water and Power. < < The documents raise questions about some of the common assumptions that < have arisen around the electricity crisis. For instance, almost 40 percent < of the state's purchases have come from government-run power generators in < California and elsewhere, but not Texas; some of the biggest suppliers are < from the Northwest. < < Gov. Gray Davis, who has ambitions to run for the White House, has put much < of the blame for the soaring costs of power on energy companies based in < President Bush's home state. < < The figures are tucked inside 1,770 of pages of invoices that Davis has < resisted divulging, saying disclosure would encourage suppliers to charge < more. The state, which last month released information on its long-term < electricity contracts worth $43 billion, agreed Thursday to release the < first quarter details. < < Short on explanation < < The figures were disclosed late Monday by the California Department of < Water Resources, which buys power for the state's financially strapped < major utilities, and seem to buttress the administration's contention that < the price of power is gradually dropping but offer little or no explanation < for what prompted the decrease. < < In January, for instance, the average price for power on the spot market < was $321 a megawatt hour. It peaked in April at $332 and dropped to $271 in < May. < < One megawatt powers about 750 homes. < < Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said the price data supports the governor's < assertions that California has been gouged. ``The bad guys are clearly the < out-of-state generators,'' Maviglio said. ``There has been a significant < shift of money out of California.'' < < But the documents fail to shed much light on whether, as the administration < contends, the price drop was due to long-term power contracts negotiated by < the state earlier this year. Critics contend that the Davis administration < panicked and rushed into deals that commit the state to pay high prices for < many years. < < Used for support < < Republican officials used the price information to bolster their attacks < against Davis, a Democrat, for signing long-term contracts with power < generators even as the price of power on the spot market was coming down, < partly because of the declining price of natural gas used to fuel many < plants. < < ``It's more clear than ever that the long-term contracts are a bad deal,'' < said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Camarillo. ``The governor's really hurt < the ratepayers for the next five or 10 years.'' < < The newly released bills highlight the volatility of California's energy < market, where the price per megawatt hour ranged from $70 to $1,000. On any < given day, the records show, the prices from seller to seller varied < widely, with some of the highest prices being charged by public utilities < and companies outside Texas. < < On one day in February, for example, San Diego-based Sempra Energy was < charging $165 per megawatt hour, the Eugene Water and Electric Board was < charging nearly $500 and Duke Energy, a North Carolina company, was < charging up to $575. < < The state's daily spending peaked May 10 at $102.4 million for all power, < including the spot market and contracted power. < < The state began buying power in mid-January on behalf of the state's major < utilities, which were unable to borrow money to buy power after amassing < enormous debts for electricity. < < San Jose-based Calpine Corp., which is building several new power plants < around California including one in South San Jose, did only $29 million < worth of business with the state in the first five months of the year, < according to the figures. < < The state began buying power in mid-January when Pacific Gas & Electric Co. < and Southern California Edison Co. were on the ropes financially. PG&E < later went into bankruptcy. < < On Monday, state lawmakers took another shot at trying to cobble together a < plan to rescue financially ailing Edison. < < While most concede that a rescue plan Davis worked out with Edison will not < win the necessary support in the Legislature, lawmakers have created < several working groups to come up with alternatives. < < Compromise plan < < On Monday, state Sen. Byron Sher, D-Redwood City, unveiled the latest < compromise proposal that seeks to protect average ratepayers and small < businesses from further rate increases and forces everyone else to help < finance the Edison bailout. < < The ``shared pain'' proposal would force power producers, owed about $1 < billion, to take a 30 percent ``haircut'' and agree to forgive about $300 < million in Edison debts. Edison would be asked to swallow $1.2 billion -- < about a third of its debt. And big users would be asked to pay off the < remaining $2 billion in debts, possibly by paying higher prices for power. < < In exchange, large companies would be given the opportunity to buy power on < the open market, a system that would allow many of them to sign cheap < energy deals. < < Sher presented the proposal to Senate Democrats Monday afternoon, but it < remains unclear how much support the framework will receive in the < Legislature. < < Contact Mark Gladstone at mgladstone@sjmercury.com or (916) 325-4314.
|