|
|
Enron Mail |
If this settlement discussion is close to possible we should immediately
starting switching customers to standard offer. Scott Other comments: This would be the critical excerpts for us: Upon termination by a customer of the utility commitment in favor of a direct access arrangement, a customer could not return to the utility portfolio, except on a spot-price basis, for a period of [one year]; accommodations would be made for customers abandoned by direct access providers with no market alternatives. (2) Large customers would be required to commit to a minimum service term of [12-36 months]; discontinuing service prior to the end of the committed term to engage in a direct access transaction with another supplier would result in a true-up of the price paid by the customer and the actual portfolio price during the term. These comments are applicable: The first term would be okay if it does not change to limit us from switching back to utility because we have been off for one year. The issues is whether the one year terms is notice or elapsed time. This suggests time is of the essense in switching back to standard offer. The 2nd term would be okay but 12 would be a lot better than 36. And 24 is pretty good too. 36 is better than a kick in the head. And a principle that, DA customers would have access to the existing generation, at cost, the same as all other industrials, should be added. We should not sign off on this solution (if they are seeking it) unless we have the option to switch back to standard offer. From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 12/18/2000 11:52 AM Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Revised CESG Outline FYI. Please keep this internal and confidential. Here's where the group I mentioned left off last Friday. It will be useful for our discussion this afternoon. You'll note from the comments that it's anything but a done deal. I'll forward the SF press mentioned in the note. Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/18/2000 11:36 AM ----- Evelyn Kahl Elsesser <eke@aelaw.com< 12/17/2000 11:05 PM To: Keith McCrea <kmccrea@sablaw.com<, "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)" <jdasovic@enron.com<, Ralph Cavanagh <RCavanagh@nrdc.org<, Bill Booth <wbooth@booth-law.com<, Ann Cohn <cohnap@sce.com<, Jan Smutny-Jones <smutny@iepa.com<, Delaney Hunter <dhunter@smithandkempton.com<, "Carolyn McIntyre (E-mail)" <cmcintyre@sempra.com<, "John Fielder (E-mail)" <fieldejr@sce.com<, "Tony Braun (E-mail)" <braun@cmua.org<, "jeflory@calpx.com" <jeflory@calpx.com<, Barbara Barkovich <brbarkovich@earthlink.net<, Dominic DiMare <dominic.dimare@calchamber.com<, Dan Richard <ddr0@pge.com< cc: Subject: Revised CESG Outline A revised CESG outline is attached, updated to reflect Friday's discussion. While we discussed much greater detail, I have continued to try to keep the outline more general to avoid generating a treatise at this point. Particularly, we discussed much greater detail around the rate stabilization plan than is reflected in the attached outline. SCE has committed to providing some sort of percentage or tiered term structure for forward contracting to complete that section of the framework (section 2). Obviously, PG&E's ideas in this area would also be welcome. In Section 4 (undercollections) I have thrown in the numbers provided to the Chronicle for the Saturday morning article describing the extent to which the utilities may have already committed to Governor Davis to absorb undercollections. (Which leads to the question for John and Dan, again, whether we are wasting our time with this exercise given the media coverage describing the state of the IOU deal.) Delaney has committed to provide a call-in number for tomorrow's 3:30 conference call. Thank you all again for your efforts.
|