|
|
Enron Mail |
worse for SCE and generators, who have to eat the small guy share of the
undercollection between them. No transmission sale. D Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: < better or worse than ours? < < < Dorothy < Rothrock To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com < <drothrock@cm cc: < ta.net< Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison < Bailout Plan < 07/11/2001 < 12:20 PM < < < < let me know if delaney doesn't send to you... < < d < < Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: < < < Thanks. 415.782.7854. Better or worse than ours? < < < < < < Dorothy < < Rothrock To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com < < <drothrock@cm cc: Ann.Cohn@sce.com, < "'Barbara Barkovich < < ta.net< (E-mail)'" < <brbarkovich@earthlink.net<, "Dominic < < DiMare (E-mail)" < <dominic.DiMare@calchamber.com<, < < 07/11/2001 "'John Fielder (E-mail)'" < <fieldejr@sce.com<, < < 11:54 AM "'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.
|