|
|
Enron Mail |
Jeff - Can you answer Jess's question? I wondered the same thing myself. =
It doesn't make much sense to raise the rates in order to make payments to = the customers. -----Original Message----- From: =09Hewitt, Jess =20 Sent:=09Friday, August 10, 2001 10:17 AM To:=09Cantrell, Rebecca W. Subject:=09Re: why would both options require a hike in the proposed rates? From:=09Rebecca W Cantrell/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Cantrell/ENRON@enronXga= te< on 08/10/2001 10:03 AM To:=09Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Allen/ENRON@enronXgate<, "Al= varez, Ray" <Ray.Alvarez@ENRON.com <mailto:Ray.Alvarez@ENRON.com<<@SMTP@enr= onXgate, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Black/HOU/EES@EES<, Alan Comnes/ENRO= N@enronXgate <mailto:Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate<, Mark Courtney/HOU/EES@EES <m= ailto:Courtney/HOU/EES@EES<, Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Dasovic= h/ENRON@enronXgate<, Frank Ermis/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Ermis/ENRON@enron= Xgate<, Robert Frank/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Frank/ENRON@enronXgate<, Donn= a Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON <mailto:Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON<, Scott Gahn/HOU/= EES@EES <mailto:Gahn/HOU/EES@EES<, Mike Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Gr= igsby/ENRON@enronXgate<, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES= <, Keith Holst/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Holst/ENRON@enronXgate<, Paul Kaufm= an/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate<, Harry Kingerski/ENRO= N@enronXgate <mailto:Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate<, Leslie Lawner/ENRON@enron= Xgate <mailto:Lawner/ENRON@enronXgate<, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate <mail= to:Mara/ENRON@enronXgate<, Stephanie Miller/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Miller= /ENRON@enronXgate<, Christi L Nicolay/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Nicolay/ENRO= N@enronXgate<, Dave Perrino/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Perrino/ENRON@enronXga= te<, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Ponce/HOU/EES@EES<, Greg Sharp/HOU/E= ES@EES <mailto:Sharp/HOU/EES@EES<, Kristann Shireman/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Sh= ireman/HOU/EES@EES<, Matt Smith/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Smith/ENRON@enronX= gate<, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate<, = Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES <mailto:Stoness/HOU/EES@EES<, Jane M Tholt/ENRON@= enronXgate <mailto:Tholt/ENRON@enronXgate<, Jennifer Thome/ENRON@enronXgate= <mailto:Thome/ENRON@enronXgate<, Barry Tycholiz/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:T= ycholiz/ENRON@enronXgate<, Steve Walton/ENRON@enronXgate <mailto:Walton/ENR= ON@enronXgate< cc:=09=20 Subject:=09 Well, this is interesting. Are they talking about the same period during w= hich gas costs were supposed to have been so unreasonably, and allegedly il= legally, high due to the actions of those greedy Texas energy firms? NGI's Daily Gas Price Index=20 published : August 10, 2001 SoCalGas Posts $223 Million in Gas-Cost Savings=20 California regulators may be scratching their heads about what to do with g= as purchasing incentives for the state's major utilities following Southern= California Gas Co.'s filing that claims its purchases over a 12-month peri= od ending last June were $223 million below market prices.=20 It was the "largest amount of savings on gas costs during any one-year peri= od in our 134-year history" of SoCalGas, which is owned by San Diego-based = Sempra Energy, according to Anne Smith, a vice president quoted in a report= to the company's employees.=20 Under a regulator-approved "gas cost incentive mechanism (GCIM) that has be= en in place in recent years, the utility can apply a formula allowing it to= share the savings between customers and shareholders." It's an incentive t= o the utility "to take reasonable risks to keep gas costs low, while ensuri= ng a reliable supply," SoCalGas's director of gas acquisition, Jim Harrigan= , told employees in the recent report.=20 With this relatively embarrassing "windfall" for shareholders, the utility = recommended to the California Public Utilities Commission in June two optio= ns for spreading the wealth:=20 1.=09Give shareholders a relatively modest $30.8 million and make the utili= ty's proposed adjustments to the GCIM program in future years. The modifica= tions were agreed to many months ago in a settlement among SoCalGas; the CP= UC; the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA); and the statewide utility cons= umer group TURN (The Utility Reform Network); or=20 2.=09Award $106 million to the utility's shareholders, which is what SoCalG= as says is the shareholders' share under the current GCIM formula.=20 Both options carry proposed rate increases to implement them. The first wou= ld necessitate a 44 cents/month increase for a 12-month period, while the s= econd alternative would require a $1.52/month hike for one year.=20
|