|
|
Enron Mail |
Dan. You might want to amend. The decision puts everyone on notice that t=
he Commission is going to consider taking it back to July 1---no info on wh= at the decision process would be. =20 Best, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:34 PM To: ARM Cc: Vicki Sandler; Tamara Johnson; Mara, Susan; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote;= Rob Nichol; Randy Hickok; Nam Nguyen; Jim Crossen; Dasovich, Jeff; Janie M= ollon; Jack Pigott; Greg Blue; George Vaughn; Gary Ackerman; Ed Cazalet; De= nice Cazalet Purdum; Curtis Kebler; Curt Hatton; Corby Gardiner; Charles Mi= essner; Carolyn Baker; Bill Ross; Karen Shea; Max Bulk Subject: DA Suspended, but NOT retroactively The Commission has just voted 3-2 to approve the draft ALJ Barnett decision= , modified to be prospective only. There is NO retroactive suspension. =20 Carl Wood introduced the ALJ's draft decision, with a diatribe against dire= ct access. He said that DA is a subsidy from less attractive customers to = large customers and an example of the saying that, "big dogs eat first and = big dogs eat best." He added that most comments advocated delay of suspens= ion and no retroactivity. He said he "finds it hard to consider these comm= ents to be anything but misleading and disingenuous." He added that, "Smal= l consumers effectively have no options." He said retroactivity will be th= e subject of further review, although it was not clear what this meant. Wi= thin 14 days, the UDCs must inform the Energy Division of steps taken not t= o accept DASRs for contracts entered into after 9/20/01. He said that dire= ct access is half of the failed deregulation process; the other half was op= ening ourselves up to the erratic wholesale market. He said that supporter= s of DA engage in "hollow rhetoric." The market has failed in the state, a= nd, "We need to put an end to the lack of social responsibility in the elec= tric market." He concluded that several commenters had indicated that direct access was a= way for making green power available to residential customers. He respond= ed that this just means other customers are getting more dirty coal-fired p= ower. He concluded that advocates of direct access make a "fraudulent clai= m of customer choice." <?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-mic= rosoft-com:office:office" /< Commissioner Bilas then spoke for his alternate, responding to Wood. He sa= id he had learned how to count, and he can count to three. He then briefly= summarized his alternate. First, he expressed disappointment in the Sacra= mento process and the fact that they had not yet done something to rescue d= irect access. Second, he indicated his view of DA was a lot different from= that of other people. He said he had always opposed the AB 1890 provision= that instituted the UDC buy-sell arrangement, saying that it eliminated th= e largest customers from direct access. Commissioner Duque then spoke brie= fly to indicate his support for the Bilas alternate draft decision and his = strong support for direct access.=20 Commissioner Brown said first, "In the weight of these sad times we must ob= ey. We are paying the price of the severe energy crisis which occurred las= t year and the extraordinary means that were used to resolve it." In an or= dinary market, he thinks DA is good, but there is no way it can coexist wit= h the State's $22 billion worth of bonds. Therefore, there is no question = that it has to be suspended. "We probably should have done so months ago, = in order to avoid a last-minute stampede." There is an inequity between cu= stomers that have moved to opt for direct access and those who have not. B= ut sometimes "you don't have a lot of good choices, and this is one of thos= e times." "If future legislation comes forward, and we hope that it would,= " the Commission will attempt to revise this action. =20 President Lynch noted the State Senate leadership has written asking for a = study to be delivered by 1/1/02 as to how DA can be maintained without bias= to ratepayers and she supported this action.=20 Bilas and Duque indicated they will both file dissents.=20 In conclusion, we have prevailed in our opposition to retroactive direct ac= cess suspension. We now need to consider whether we want to contest the su= spension itself, on legal/procedural grounds. Dan =20 Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com<
|