|
|
Enron Mail |
We had been in discussions with SCE a few months back to remove the QF
requirement in their Rule 21. At the time they said they "could" not because the construct of their standby rate did not provide adequately provide recovery for standby service (particularly for non-demand related tariff schedules). The rejection was were we left the subject with SCE. Their move to submit an advice letter on the subject comes as a surprise to me given their prior response. We will not be protesting with the presumption that the standby tariff would not prejudice future work on standby tariff rate design. Generally speaking, the QF requirement is ridiculous and should be removed immediately. For this reason, we are supportive of it happening now through this advice filing. I do not want to see the prohibition against non-QF facilities for up to another 9 months (rough estimate based on time-frame articulated in the DG order). Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com writes: < < <shouldn't this be the subject of the upcoming cec workshops? isn't the <timing <of the filing, well, awkward? wouldn't it be better if they withdrew and <brought as a proposal to the workshops? < <
|