|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: System Administrator <postmaster@ElPaso.com< X-To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Your message To: Lynn.A.Lednicky@dynegy.com Cc: alex.goldberg@williams.com; bbailey@duke-energy.com; clark.smith@elpaso.com; hoffman@blackstone.com; Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com; john.harrison@elpaso.com; Maureen.McVicker@enron.com; rachael.king@elpaso.com; randy.harrison@mirant.com; skean@enron.com; sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com; sryan@aesc.com; tom.allen@mirant.com Subject: Re: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call Sent: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:30:25 -0500 did not reach the following recipient(s): rachael.king@ElPaso.com on Tue, 15 May 2001 14:36:23 -0500 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=EPNG;l=MAIL05A0105151936KJPV32KD MSEXCH:IMS:EPNG:Houston:MAIL05A 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient Message-ID: <OF6EEC9378.B4F0D1BB-ON86256A4D.0063DCB7@enron.com< From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com To: Lynn.A.Lednicky@dynegy.com Cc: alex.goldberg@williams.com, bbailey@duke-energy.com, clark.smith@elpaso.com, hoffman@blackstone.com, Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com, john.harrison@elpaso.com, Maureen.McVicker@enron.com, rachael.king@elpaso.com, randy.harrison@mirant.com, skean@enron.com, sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com, sryan@aesc.com, tom.allen@mirant.com Subject: Re: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:30:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-MS-Embedded-Report: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks for the commnets, Lynn. I've faxed you a copy of "Plan B." I'll let others chime in, but ideally it seemsthat we'd want to start the meetings next week and have at least the rough outline of a proposed, comprehensive solution to put on the table for discussion. But at a minimum we'd want to get "the process" nailed down by very early next week. Best, Jeff Lynn.A.Lednicky@ dynegy.com To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com cc: sryan@aesc.com, hoffman@blackstone.com, 05/15/2001 07:34 bbailey@duke-energy.com, AM john.harrison@elpaso.com, rachael.king@elpaso.com, clark.smith@elpaso.com, skean@enron.com, tom.allen@mirant.com, sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com, randy.harrison@mirant.com, alex.goldberg@williams.com, Maureen.McVicker@enron.com Subject: Re: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call Jeff, Sorry I was unable to make the call yesterday. Thanks for the summary. My comments and questions are indicated below. Please fax a copy of Plan B to be at 713 767 6677. You suggest starting the "process" in Sacramento next week. I'm not sure exactly what this means. Are we saying we will have a proposal or that we will be advocating a process/forum to get all the right parties at the table? Did we set a time for the next call on Friday? With regard to the Issues list, here are a few extra items: need to make clear that real price signals should be sent to all sectors (not just those that wouldn't vote for Davis anyway) as soon as possible I cannot imagine a situation in which the IOUs are returned to financial stability within 3-6 months; my guess is that it will be at least a year if IOUs are returned to the procurement role, we need to make sure that they have the appropriate risk management tools (ability to enter forward contracts, options, etc.) if IOUs are returned to the procurement role, we also need to have assurances that the situation we have today won't happen again; for example, if the state assigns the CDWR contracts to the IOUs and three years from now the market price is less than the contract price, what assurances does anyone have that the PUC will not try to make the IOUs absorb the difference If we want to go to a core/non-core approach, why do we need to wait 18-24 months; it seems to me that we could start that process now As for legal claims and investigations, we need to make clear that we want to resolve all state and federal claims; the civil claims present a different set of challenges for resolution as for discounts on receivables, I'm not ready to commit one way or another; however, if there are discounts they must apply to all market participants - not just the ones that Davis can get to the table. Lynn Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com on 05/14/2001 08:47:31 PM To: sryan@aesc.com, hoffman@blackstone.com, bbailey@duke-energy.com, Lynn.A.Lednicky@Dynegy.com, john.harrison@elpaso.com, rachael.king@elpaso.com, clark.smith@elpaso.com, skean@enron.com, tom.allen@mirant.com, sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com, randy.harrison@mirant.com, alex.goldberg@williams.com cc: Maureen.McVicker@enron.com Subject: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call Greetings: n order to keep everyone in the loop, the folks on today's call wanted to send out a brief summary of the call for the benefit of those who couldn't make it. Apologies for any omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Others who were on the call please chime in if I've gotten anything wrong, or missed anything. Best, Jeff SUMMARY Enron, Duke, El Paso and Williams were on the call, as was Michael Hoffman of the Blackstone Group (the Governor's financial advisors). On the subject of how the group would organize itself, it was agreed that the calls would be open to anyone who wanted to participate. A smaller group consisting of Duke, El Paso, Enron, and Williams would take the lead on walking the halls of Sacramento, meeting with policy makers, and advocating whatever plan the group develops. Folks agreed that achieving a comprehesive solution requires a tangible process; that is, the principals need to get in a room, face to face, for however long it takes to work out a resolution. It was agreed that the process should start no later than the beginning of next week, and that it should take place in Sacramento. It was decided that the Legislature and the Attorney General needed to be brought into the process as soon as possible, i.e., next week. There was some discussion regarding the release today of "Plan B." Plan B is a plan proposed by Democratic and Republican legislators as an alternative to the MOU that the Governor struck with Edison. After that call I received a copy of "Plan B." If you'd like a copy please send me your fax number. Folks on the call agreed to have the next "supplier-only" call-in meeting on Friday. Finally, Michael Hoffman said that they are hoping to have a "ratings agency level" presentation prepared by the end of the week. The goal of the presentation is to reassure capital markets that the bonds the state seeks to issue are solidly backed by retail rates. The Agenda for Tomorrow's Call with the Governor's Staff Item #1: The Credit Issue Michael Hoffman said that the Governor's office wants to start tomorrow's meeting discussing the creditworthiness issue. Hoffman said that the Governor's folks are hoping to have completed by the start of tomorrow's meeting a draft of an agreement between the California PUC and CDWR. The agreement is designed to ensure that DWR gets paid for power services delivered. If the draft is ready, they'd like to discuss on the call tomorrow. Item #2: Identify the Components of a Comprehensive Solution. It was agreed that our group should put on the table at tomorrow's meeting the universe of issues that need to be included in a comprehensive solution. Enron was asked to take a first stab at what those components are. The following is a brief outline, which is not intended to be definitive, but a starting point for discussion. Utility creditworthiness retail rates must reflect costs Increase supply streamline and otherwise reform the siting process Decrease demand establish real-time pricing implement demand buy-down and other conservation programs Create a real market Remove the State from the power-buying business as soon as possible (e.g., once new rates are in place and utilities are returned to creditworthiness; approximately 3-6 months) Return the procurement role to the utilities Reinstate Direct Access immediately for all customers Within 18-24 months, create a "core/noncore" market structure for electricity, similar to California's market structure for natural gas Keep the industry in the hands of the private sector Reject proposals calling on the State to take over transmission, generation, etc. Resolve outstanding legal claims, investigations, etc. Resolution requires certainty and prompt payment (understanding that discounts on receivables is on the table for discussion)
|