|
|
Enron Mail |
Commissioner Wood is not letting go of the retroactive direct access suspension issue. Attached for your information is a ruling issued Tuesday which calls for parties to file comments by November 2 (and reply comments on November 8) on the following questions:
_____ It is noted that statistics from the utilities' monthly filings (see attached Appendix A)[1] show that commencing on or about July 1, 2001, there has been an increase in customers switching to direct access. This information further highlights the concerns about cost-shifting and the need to minimize the significant impacts to bundled electric customers who will likely be left with more costs.[2] These cost-shifting issues are part of the Commission's consideration in determining whether there should be an earlier suspension date and what this date should be. Accordingly, in this Assigned Commissioner's Ruling, the following issues are presented for comment by interested parties: 1. Why should or shouldn't the Commission choose an earlier date (than after September 20, 2001) for suspending the right to acquire direct access service? 2. If the Commission should choose an earlier date, why should or shouldn't the Commission consider the July 1, 2001 suspension as set forth in the June 15 and August 27 Draft Decisions of ALJ Barnett? If not July 1, 2001, what other date or dates should the Commission consider and why? 3. Are there alternatives to suspending direct access as of a date before September 20, 2001, that would still alleviate cost-shifting problems? What are the pros and cons of these alternatives? Can the Commission adopt any such proposed alternative without new legislation? 4. What effect, if any, should be given to renewals of contracts originally entered into prior to the effective date of the Commission's suspension of direct access? 5. What effect, if any, should be given to provisions in contracts ("add-on provisions") that allow the buyer to add more facilities to be served after the date on which direct access is suspended? 6. Are there any other types of contract provisions that the Commission should consider in terms of applying the suspension as set forth in D.01-09-060 or the Commission's consideration of an early suspension date? 7. If any party has in its possession any of the following, please provide: a. Copies of various types of contracts executed or agreements entered into between electric service providers and direct access customers.[3] b. Copies of various types of contracts or agreements offered but not executed or entered into between electric service providers and direct access customers.[4] c. Copies of blank direct access contracts, not otherwise provided in 7a or 7b. 8. For electric service providers: a. How many contracts have you executed or entered into with direct access customers between January 17, 2001 and September 20, 2001? How much load is contracted for in each of these contracts? Please provide the information by dates of execution. b. What percentage of your total direct access contracts contains any renewal provision? What percentage of your total direct access contracts contains any add-on provision? _____ [1] The information contained in Appendix A is taken from Statewide Summaries in the Direct Access Implementation Activities Reports from January 15, 2001 to October 15, 2001, that is publicly available on the CPUC website. The summaries were produced from information filed by the utilities on a monthly basis. (See Opinion Extending Certain Monthly Reporting Requirements [D.00-12-036] (2000) ___ Cal.P.U.C.2d ___.) [2] The general magnitude of potential cost shifting can be seen by referring to DWR's most recent revenue requirement draft submission, dated October 19, 2001, of which official notice is taken. The revenue requirement from ratepayers contained in DWR's most recent submission is $10.189 billion for the twenty-four calendar months of 2001 and 2002. [3] Information about the customer (e.g., name, address, etc.) and pricing may be redacted from these copies. Date of execution or signing should not be redacted. [4] Information about the customer (e.g., name, address, etc.) and pricing may be redacted from these copies. Any information regarding the dates of the offer should not be redacted. _____ Finally, Wood says that it is his, "current plan that a decision regarding the above will be issued based on the written comments filed by the parties. If any party believes that an evidentiary hearing is needed, it must make such a request in its comments. The requesting party must set forth in detail what material factual issues are in dispute, why those facts are material, and what evidence would be presented in an evidentiary hearing on such issues." Dan Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com< Dan Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com<
|