|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks very much. I'm assuming that Bev is there in her capacity as lobbyist
for Wild Goose on this one? Can you please let me know 1) the outcome of the meeting and 2) any actions the group intends to take. I'm here in Sacramento, have alerted Hedy, told her that we're trying to gather more intelligence, and that you and your client are attempting to get folks together to mount opposition. Give me a call on my cell phone to fill me in on what the group decides. Finally, what information do you have about where generators and other large customers groups (i.e., CMTA, the Chamber and CLECA) are on the bill? Best, Jeff MDay <MDay@GMSSR.com< 07/17/2001 12:38 PM To: "'Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com'" <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com<, James.D.Steffes@enron.com cc: Harry.Kingerski@enron.com, Paul.Kaufman@enron.com, Susan.J.Mara@enron.com, Leslie.Lawner@enron.com, MDay <MDay@GMSSR.com< Subject: RE: AB 23XX Bad Bill Alert Jeff; In response to your questions, I cannot explain why everyone missed this bill in the past, I have raised it to the attention of my clients twice in the last two months. However, now that it is moving they have got the message. Williams (Kern River) is going to host a meeting today to create a coalition to oppose the bill. Bev Hansen knows where the meeting will take place. In addition to Williams, I understand that Questar, WSPA, and other retail customer groups will join the coalition and oppose the bill. My client Wild Goose will also be listed in opposition, but they don't carry that much clout or name recognition so far. I am hopeful that other groups will surface soon. As for the bill itself, the problem is two fold. First, the CPUC decides what infrastructure to build at the request of the utilities. They take input from customers, but Loretta is a command and control type all the way, and she will try to scare away private capital investment by interstate pipelines by mandating that the utilities build a gold-plated state-regulated system. While the bill does not (and cannot legally) bar interstate pipelines from coming into the state, it has provisions which will prevent large customers from signing up with the interstates. The large customers have to commit to take firm service on a 5 year basis with exit fees. If they don't take this, they can only get interruptible service from the utilities. Many if not all large customers, especially generators cannot afford to take partial service from an interstate and have only interruptible access to the LDC system. This is the same dilemma that the RLS tariff caused. My belief is that the obligation on the part of the commission to provide the utilities with cost recovery for the new investments will be used as justification by the utilities for another attempt to reinstitute the RLS tariff or an onerous peaking rate. The Commission will impose a premium price on service to customers who have not undertaken the firm 5 year commitment and will therefore be unable to economically take partial requirements service from an interstate. My view is based on Sempra's reaction to the current peaking rate proposed decision and statements by Lynch's office. This could interfere with Enron gas sales over the interstates, and would certainly threaten any Transwestern plans for building across the border into California, although that does not appear to be a high priority at this time. This bill will also make it more costly to develop gas supply arrangments for new power plants which had hoped to direct connect to interstate pipeline capacity for a portion of their needs. Please call if you have further questions. Mike Day -----Original Message----- From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:09 AM To: James.D.Steffes@enron.com Cc: Harry.Kingerski@enron.com; Paul.Kaufman@enron.com; Susan.J.Mara@enron.com; Leslie.Lawner@enron.com; MDay@GMSSR.com Subject: Re: AB 23XX Bad Bill Alert I've taken a quick look at the bill and have attached for easy viewing. Few questions. Mike, I understand from our conversation yesterday that your following this on behalf of Questar. Do we know if the other pipelines have been active in any discussions on this bill? What about the generators? Have then been involved, since presumably, their in need of lots more capacity (and they're referenced in the bill)? What about large customers? They been screaming for more infrastructure, too, and many have blamed SoCalGas (and the PUC) for not delivering it. Do we know if pipelines, generators, large customers are supporting or opposing the bill? I'll try to check around, too, in between the electric mayhem. There doesn't seem to be anything in the bill that prevents the interstates from building into the state. If that's true, wouldn't the PUC take those projects into account when doing its analysis and only require the utility to construct (and noncore to take) capacity that isn't already being met by others (i.e., interstates) bringing pipe into the state? Any info you can provide on these fronts would be very useful. Don't want Enron too far out in front of opposition until we find out a bit more regarding 1) whose fer and agin it and 2) analysis of what the bill actually does/does not do. Thanks again for the heads up. Best, Jeff (See attached file: 23XX.pdf) James D Steffes To: Harry Kingerski/Enron@EnronXGate cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 07/17/2001 Mara/NA/Enron, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate 07:43 AM Subject: AB 23XX Bad Bill Alert Harry -- Can you track down this bill and determine impact? We'll discuss on Thursday. Jim ---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 07/17/2001 07:43 AM --------------------------- MDay <MDay@GMSSR.com< on 07/16/2001 06:03:33 PM To: "'Bev Hansen, Enron lobbyist'" <bhansen@lhom.com<, "'Hedy Govenar, Enron Sacto lobbyist'" <hgovenar@govadv.com<, "'Scott Govenar, Enron lobbyist'" <sgovenar@govadv.com<, "'Harry Kingerski'" <hkingers@enron.com<, "'Jim Steffes, Enron'" <jsteffe@enron.com< cc: Subject: AB 23XX Bad Bill Alert Is AB 23XX moving with a chance of passage? I just learned that this Pescetti bill that was AB 1425 was revived as a 2X bill. It is very anti-competitive, and could hurt a number of TW, EES, or ENA gas deals by binding customers to 100% utility service through the imposition of large exit fees by the CPUC. If there is a chance that it moves, we need to discuss the effect of this bill. Mike Day http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx2_23_bill_20010625_amend ed_sen.pdf
|