|
|
Enron Mail |
Here you go, for what it's worth.
-----Original Message----- From: Parquet, David Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:33 PM To: Mara, Susan Subject: FW: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report Here what I promised. -----Original Message----- From: Bouse, Earl [mailto:Earl.Bouse@HansonAmerica.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:57 AM To: Wallmann, James; Carson, Brad; Dave Parquet (E-mail); Browner, Victor Subject: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report FYI -----Original Message----- From: William Booth [mailto:wbooth@booth-law.COM] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:46 AM To: Delaney Hunter (E-mail); Robert P. Houston (E-mail); D. J. Smith (E-mail) Cc: Barbara R. Barkovich (E-mail); Bill Brown (E-mail); Brad Wilkins (E-mail); Brett Guge (E-mail); Byron McMichael (E-mail); Dan Moreno (E-mail); Dave Salzborn (E-mail); djsmith@s-k-w.com; Earl F. Bouse Jr. (E-mail 2); Frank Sheets (E-mail); Gordon Johnson (E-mail); Jim Ellison (E-mail); Marc Madden (E-mail); Michael Jasberg (E-mail); PTalluri@CemexUsa.com; Robert P. Houston (E-mail); Rudy Soliman (E-mail); Satish Sheth (E-mail); Taylor Miller (E-mail); Tom Lynard (E-mail) Subject: TURN Amendments re DA Folks - I have taken a look at the TURN amendments that Delaney sent me just now, and I have discussed them with Barbara. The TURN approach is totally unacceptable and we should oppose, in our view. I will also forward this to the CLECA members for their review. Here are some of things wrong witih the TURN approach: * The suspension of DA is retroactive to July 1, 2001. * All of the language we had in subsection (h) regarding treatment of continuous DA customers has been removed and replaced with a very limited exemption for plants on the site of the customer. * Any customer who was a bundled customer for even a day is responsible for the full panoply of exit fees. * The DWR forward exit fee is calculated simply as the difference between the DWR portfolio cost, say 10 cents, and the cost of contracts in the market at the time of the determination, say 4.5 cents today. There is no look at net short. Each DA customer would be assessed the 5.5 cents in my example, plus DWR historical and Edison undercollection fees. A total of 6.5 to 7 cents in my example. Ts makes DA totally uneconomic. Further, in assessing the DWR portfolio cost we are to look at the minimum purchase levels, thereby raising the per kWh cost due to demand costs. * Finally, the language adds to the CPUC's rules on coming back to bundled service, including the provision of notice by the customer before it returns. And it adds language authorizing the CPUC to adopt reg's for DA after the utility takes over the net short purchase obligations from the DWR. This is really bad language in my view. As we discussed yesterday, it makes DA uneconomic. I think we should oppose it. I heard from Derek Naten, SVMG's lobbyist, just now. He informs that Rick Simposn and Lawrence Lingbloom say the Edsion undercollection cut point will move up to 125 kW. Rick told him that DA is out of the bill entirely. Lawrence told him that DA will be adressed in a bill under Debra Bowen's control, and that Debra had a good proposal all along and that the business guys had screwed it up. Are we making progress? Bill
|