Re: Solve IOU Undercollection with a Mere 10% Average Rate

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Harry Kingerski
X-To: Jeff Dasovich
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf

Jeff - just brief comments:

1) I'd like MRW to affirm that this revenue does not have to be grossed up=
=20
for federal income taxes. Usually revenue requirement does have to get tha=
t=20
gross-up.
2) the 7% discount rate presumes securitization, is that correct? So we ne=
ed=20
to be clear that we are assuming securitization.
3) the percentage increases from other states is shaky. These were in some=
=20
cases isolated utilities and not reflective of how much lower their rates a=
re=20
to begin with. =20

=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0902/26/2001 06:50 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, mpalmer@enron.com,=
=20
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John=20
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron=
,=20
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie=20
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Solve IOU Undercollection with a Mere 10% Average Rate Incr=
ease?

Greetings:

Please review the attached. It's a summary I've put together of a very=20
lengthy analysis MRW did for us over the weekend. I've also attached the=
=20
considerably lengthier MRW memo for those who'd like to see it. The tables=
=20
included in the summary are pulled directly from the MRW memo. The analysi=
s=20
only addresses the utilities undercollection (i.e., solvency) and doesn't=
=20
address any additional increases that might result from DWR's buying=20
activities.

The Bottom Line
=06=15 By raising average rates 10% over a 10-year period, California could=
1)=20
return the utilities to solvency, and 2) help close the supply-demand gap =
by=20
providing customers with better price signals.
=06=15 California could achieve these goals under this new rate structure a=
nd at=20
the same time exclude one-third of residential customers from any increase=
s.=20
If California chose not to exclude any customers from the new rate structur=
e,=20
California would only need to raise average rates by about 8.8%.
=06=15 This level of increase is in line with increases enacted in other st=
ates=20
(e.g., Washington: 28-34%; Montana: 4.5-32%; Idaho: 6.0-24%; Nevada:=20
7-12.5%; New Mexico 12%).

We'll need to look at it critically and try to shoot holes in it before goi=
ng=20
public with the numbers as part of our broader effort, but it offers a=20
reasonable benchmark against which to judge alternatives (like spending the=
=20
kids lunch money on crumbling, broken down transmission systems).

Please provide feedback as soon as possible, and perhaps, Paul we conclude=
=20
the MRW work on the agenda for discussion on tomorrow's daily conference ca=
ll.

Best,
Jeff

- Undercollection assessment final.doc