|
|
Enron Mail |
I wonder if there is a way to determine from the studies when the rate free=
ze=20 ended. My logical is that at some point there was a crossover and maybe fr= om=20 the cash flows we would be able to determine the outcome. What does everyo= ne=20 think? Jim ----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 01/30/2001 09:21 PM ----- =09Jeff Dasovich =09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich =0901/28/2001 09:01 PM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Gord= on=20 Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Vick= i=20 Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Donald M- ECT Origination=20 Black/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT= ,=20 Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J=20 Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: Rate Surcharge Proceedings Move Forward ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/28/2001 08:59 PM ----- =09"Daniel Douglass" <Douglass@ArterHadden.com< =0901/28/2001 01:23 PM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: <Barbara_Klemstine@apsc.com<, <berry@apx.com<, <dcazalet@apx.com= <,=20 <billr@calpine.com<, <jackp@calpine.com<, <glwaas@calpx.com<,=20 <Ken_Czarnecki@calpx.com<, <gavaughn@duke-energy.com<,=20 <rjhickok@duke-energy.com<, <gtbl@dynegy.com<, <jmpa@dynegy.com<,=20 <jdasovic@enron.com<, <susan_j_mara@enron.com<, <Tamara_Johnson@enron.com<,= =20 <curt.Hatton@gen.pge.com<, <foothill@lmi.net<, <camiessn@newwestenergy.com<= ,=20 <jcgardin@newwestenergy.com<, <jsmollon@newwestenergy.com<,=20 <rsnichol@newwestenergy.com<, <Curtis_L_Kebler@reliantenergy.com<,=20 <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com< =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: Rate Surcharge Proceedings Move Forward On Friday, the Commission issued the attached Assigned Commissioner's Ruli= ng=20 in the rate surcharge proceedings which does the following: ? 1.? It identifies the issues for Phase 1 as being: ? (a) Reviewing the independent audit results of PG&E and SCE, ordered in =20 D.00-12-067 and, as part of that analysis, determining whether or not there= =20 is a financial necessity for other or additional relief for the utilities.= ? =20 Included here is a recognition that the utilities may make other interim = =20 proposals and this would be included within the scope of the first phase; = and ? (b) TURN=01,s accounting proposal for the proper reconciliation of the =20 Transition Revenue Account (TRA) and Transition Cost Balancing Account=20 (TCBA) accounts and the Generation Memorandum Accounts (GMA). ? 2.? The retention of utility generating assets and the interim ratemaking= =20 treatment for these assets is being separately handled and hearings will n= ot=20 occur on this issue in Phase 1.? Parties may file testimony on interim=20 valuation in addressing whether the rate freeze has ended on a prospective= =20 basis. 3.?? The Commission will consider whether the rate freeze has ended only o= n=20 a prospective basis in Phase I. 4.?? The Commission will address the reasonable and prudent cost issue in = a=20 later phase of this proceeding. 5.?? The Commission will also consider parties=01, proposals for tiered ra= tes=20 similar to those discussed by Senator Bowen in the December public hearing= s. ? 6.?? PG&E and?Edison are required to?notify the Commission and all parties= =20 by January 30, 2001 of the specific portions of their testimony that are= =20 within the scope of this phase. 7. The hearing schedule adopted is:?=20 February 5, 2001????????????? Intervenor testimony served February 9, 2001????????????? Rebuttal testimony served February 15 =01)21, 2001????? Hearings February 23, 2001??????????? Closing Argument February 27, 2001??????????? Briefs, not to exceed 15 pages March 23, 2001????????????????Proposed Decision March 26, 2001????????????????Final Oral Argument March 27, 2001????????????????Anticipated Final Commission Decision ? Please let me know if anyone feels WPTF should be involved in this phase of= =20 the proceeding. ? Dan ? - CPUC01-#88123-v1-A0011038_ET_AL_Lynch_Walwyn_Ruling__.doc
|