|
|
Enron Mail |
We just completed our weekly conference call with UC/CSU and their are some
noteworthy developments. Diann, Maurice and I participated. We need to consider the ramifications and set actions accordingly. I've put actions/questions in bold below. EDI Transfer Agreements UC and CSU are going to complete the EDI transfer agreements and get back to us this week. They have come to the realization that the utilities are resourcing their supply and that they need to take us up on our EDI offer in order to address billing issues. They want us to assure them that cut-off notices, which will consequently be directed to us, are adequately addressed to prevent actual cut-offs from occurring. Diann is addressing. DR-SC Services UC and CSU have elected to use APX to provide Demand Relief-Schedule Coordination services for their DRP instead of Enron. UC/CSU apparently need to get a copy of their executed DR-SC agreements to the ISO by tomorrow (May 15), or run the risk of forfeiting their participation. We are not able to provide a commitment of getting their proposed Letter Agreement executed in their timeframe (tomorrow). (I informed my counterparts that we did not receive the draft agreement until Wednesday of last week, two weeks later than originally promised, and that Enron should not be held accountable for the delay. Maric of UC informed me that UC did not provide the agreement to us earlier because they first wanted to know their supply status (DA vs. utility supply). I reminded Maric (and CSU) that our offer to provide DR-SC services was independent of their energy supply status). Bob, Kristen - as a result, I will not be forwarding our red-line of their draft agreement. Meter Installs My counterparts at UC and CSU confirmed that SCE would not receive resistance at campuses to install the SCE meters. However, this was conditional that we coordinate with the campuses ahead of time. Though I don't believe we are obligated to do this, I see no harm in sharing with UC/CSU and the campuses the SCE transition dates, and offering to coordinate with their campuses. Also, I am working with Diann and Maurice to determine our most cost effective approach for continuing to provide interval data reporting services. Recall that we had before recommended the dual sockets, however, we are now looking into using IDR read-only access from the utility meters as a reduced-cost option. We did not offer this today, and are scheduled to meet with UC and CSU tomorrow to discuss further. Mike, Bob, Kristen - do you see any harm in us offering a different approach at this point (i.e., utility IDR meters with Enron read-only provision instead of dual sockets)? Surcharges Maric asked we give her assurance we were not planning to pass through surcharges to the campuses. I informed her we were considering doing just that and that we would be taking up with them at some time in the future (perhaps during mediation discussions). Interestingly, she did not point to the contract in dissuading us, giving me the impression that they may believe the contract is in our favor on this. Instead, she pointed out some written testimony Enron had provided where we are on record as saying we would not pass through the surcharges to our customers. Jeff, anyone - Any background on this purported testimony? Let me know if you have any questions. Ideas, suggestions welcome. Tom
|