|
|
Enron Mail |
Agree with most of what you've said. I also would like a good handle on TRA
undercollection ##s. We've had great difficulty getting agreement on ##s. I'll give it a try before tomorrow. Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: < Sorry. Been a bit crazy around here. Thanks for the note, and thank you < for doing such a good job at driving this process. My thoughts on your < proposal (and these are very preliminary): 1) politicians may not be < willing to go as high as 25% for fear of being accused of a "utility < bailout"--maybe 10-15%? though utility solvency may force their hands. 2) < TURN will go ape-#%#$ if we make the "roll off" retroactive to October. 3) < I'm willing to allow utilities to collect TRA undercollections, but feel < that customers and utilities (not me) need to figure out precisely what < that number is. < < Look forward to getting closure tomorrow, though I'm very concerned that < we've lost Edison, given Bryson's public calls to return to 1950. < < Best, < Jeff < < < Evelyn Kahl < Elsesser To: "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)" < <eke@aelaw.co <jdasovic@enron.com< < m< cc: < Subject: thanks < 12/12/2000 < 06:57 PM < < < < I really appreciated your participation today...very substantive and < constructive. I particularly liked the idea of a migration "trigger", < which I included in the outline. I personally think that the big ticket < items are rate level, rate freeze end and TRA allocation. I wish we < could start facing that dance. I'd play with (a) 25% immediate increase < in commodity price (explicit, rather than residual); (b) rate freeze end < on October 2, 2000 © pre EOF TRA undercollections to utilities, < everything after is allocated forward to procurement customers. < Thoughts?
|