|
|
Enron Mail |
Your understanding of my previous dissertation is correct. -Jim
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 02/28/2001 01:04 PM CST Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON To: James D Foster/DUB/EES@EES cc: Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Dennis Harris/DUB/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, smara@enron.com, smccubbi@enron.com Subject: Re: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Thanks very much for getting back to us. So if I understand the bottom line: 1) the customer was mistakenly put back to SoCal (due to the dual service territory character of the customer's facilities), 2) the customer will be returned to our service, 3) the customer's contract with us expires on 5/31, and 4) the customer will have the option of re-signing with us, or returning to SoCalGas when the contracts ends on 5/31? If I've confused anything, please let me know. And thanks again for helping track down the info. Best, Jeff James D Foster@EES 02/28/2001 12:56 PM To: Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis Harris/DUB/EES@EES cc: Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, smccubbi@enron.com, smara@enron.com Subject: Re: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Upon research, it was discovered that this customer has two active meters in two different Utilities (PG&E, and SOCAL) under the same contract. This is the reason for the confusion. For tracking purposes, we "break-out" meters by LDC in order to assign our customers to reps familiar with a particular LDC. Those customers that have multiple LDC's under the same contract are assigned to the same rep. This allows the customers to speak to the same individual for all of their accounts. Unfortunately the site in question was identified in error as a single site only. The site in PG&E was assigned to Dennis Harris, while the site in SOCAL, because of the low usage, was identified for transition to SOCAL. This was not our intention. The data has been realigned and Dennis Harris now has access to both records. I spoke to Dennis regarding this issue, and he will contact the customer, explain why it occurred, stop the transition to SOCAL for this site, should the customer choose to; as well as coordinate a renewal for this customer going forward, as their current agreement is to expire 05/31/01. Catherine Woods 02/28/2001 08:53 AM To: Foster cc: Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Can you indentify the owner of this record? Thank you! ---------------------- Forwarded by Catherine Woods/DUB/EES on 02/28/2001 08:52 AM --------------------------- From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 02/27/2001 05:47 PM CST Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON To: Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Catherine/Roger: Here are some more details forwarded by our outside counsel. Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 05:44 PM ----- MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com< 02/27/2001 05:25 PM To: "'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'" <jdasovic@enron.com< cc: "'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'" <smccubbi@enron.com<, "'Sue Mara at Enron SF'" <smara@enron.com< Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Jeff: Here is some more useful information. Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC spoke to the woman in person. The school in question is the Providence High School in Burbank, California (not Ontario), operated by the Sisters of Providence. Ms. Kathy Pentalio (sp?) at 818-846-8140 wrote to the CPUC asking about the school's options after receiving phone and letter notification that their gas service would be terminated by Enron. Apparently the Sisters also operate a hospital which is also served by Enron. Ms. Pentalio indicated that she was told that the school would no longer be served on the same contract as the hospital (claimed to be an attractive 86 cents/th rate) because the school's load was so small that it was a core customer, while the hospital was a noncore customer with a larger load. Neither Ms. Sarvate nor Ms. Pentalio was clear if the school was served as a core aggregation customer or as part of the Sisters of Providence noncore contract. Ms. Pentalio claimed she spoke with Enron employees Dennis Harris in Dublin, Ohio as well as Roger Pons in New Mexico. She indicated that service would be terminated on June 1, 2001 and she is looking for alternative sources of gas. Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC Energy Division would like to understand the specifics of this case, but her main concern, and the purpose for sending a letter (if she does send one) is that Dynergy has told her that a number of small noncore businesses are being returned to the utilities by marketers because they no longer meet credit requirements. She assumed that must be true with Enron as well. I indicated to her that she should never assume that we are doing what Dynegy is doing and that we would respond and advise her if there was any significant trend of noncore customer turnbacks. The Commission's concern, which I know you understand, is that it is phasing out the core subscription schedule (and has a moratorium on switches to the SoCalGas core subscription schedule) therefore leaving no place for such customers to go if they cannot contract with a replacement aggregator. Please advise me of what you discover about this matter and we can talk further about a response to the CPUC. Thank you. Mike Day
|