|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Alonso, Tom </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=TALONSO< X-To: Salisbury, Holden </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Hsalisbu< X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - Salisbury, Holden\Inbox X-Origin: SALISBURY-H X-FileName: holden salisbury 6-26-02.PST -----Original Message----- From: Comnes, Alan Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:23 PM To: Alonso, Tom; Alvarez, Ray; Badeer, Robert; Belden, Tim; Blair, Kit; Calger, Christopher F.; Choi, Paul; Dasovich, Jeff; Driscoll, Michael M.; Fischer, Mark; Foster, Chris H.; Gang, Lisa; Guzman, Mark; Hall, Steve C. (Legal); Heizenrader, Tim; Kaufman, Paul; Mainzer, Elliot; Mallory, Chris; Malowney, John; Mara, Susan; Motley, Matt; Perrino, Dave; Platter, Phillip; Rance, Susan; Rawson, Lester; Richter, Jeff; Rosman, Stewart; Savage, Gordon; Scholtes, Diana; Semperger, Cara; Stokley, Chris; Swain, Steve; Swerzbin, Mike; Symes, Kate; Walton, Steve; Williams III, Bill Subject: FW: PUC Press Release Announcing Deal with Edison BREAKING NEWS IMPORTANT Importance: High READ DASOVICH'S SUMMARY WHICH FOLLOWS THE PRESS RELEASE BELOW. gac -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:53 PM To: Dasovich, Jeff; Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa; Comnes, Alan Subject: PUC Press Release Announcing Deal with Edison Importance: High PUC and Edison Settle Federal litigation to maintain utility service without raising rates The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Southern California Edison (Edison) today reached a settlement in the Filed Rate Doctrine lawsuit Edison filed in federal court against the PUC. The settlement is intended to restore Edison to creditworthiness so that it is able to resume procuring the electricity needed by its customers; limit ratepayers' costs of paying off the debt; and maintain the state's role in regulating the investor owned utility by enabling Edison to pay down its back debts over a reasonable, certain period of time. The terms of the Settlement Agreement include: ? Edison will apply cash on hand, plus all of its revenue over recoverable costs, to paying off its back debt. The PUC and Edison have agreed that the amount of the back debt to be recovered from ratepayers is the amount of certain outstanding debt Edison had at August 31, 2001, less the cash on hand on that date, less an additional $300 million adjustment. The amount that will be paid down pursuant to the settlement agreement is estimated to be $3 billion as of the end of this month. The parties believe that the amount to be paid by ratepayers will be much less than the cap. ? Edison will not pay any dividends on its common stock through 2003, or on the full payment of its debt, if sooner. If Edison has not fully paid its back debt by the end of 2003, the Commission retains the discretion to determine whether Edison will pay a dividend in 2004. Edison is free to resume paying dividends in 2005. Since Edison's annual dividend has typically been about $400 million, Edison's shareholders will have forgone at least $1.2 billion in dividends and possibly more, in addition to the $300 million adjustment. ? Edison will apply 100% of any recovery it obtains from refund proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or litigation against sellers to pay down the back debt. Edison commits through court order to work with the PUC and the Attorney General in pursuing litigation against the energy sellers. ? The PUC can direct Edison to use $150 million each year for other utility purposes, including the provision of additional energy efficiency monies, which would otherwise be used to pay down the Edison debt. ? The PUC agrees not to lower Edison's retail rates below their current level through the end of 2003 unless the back debts are recovered. However, rates may be reduced as a result of a securitization of the debt or reduced DWR revenue needs. ? The PUC agrees to set rates not higher than the current rate, to enable Edison to recover the remaining amount of the back debt over 2004 and 2005 if Edison's back debt has not been recovered by the end of 2003. ? There are no concessions of PUC or State regulations or regulatory authority over Edison, nor is there any deregulation of valuable transmission and generation facilities. ? Edison may make up to $900 million in capital expenditures annually. "This settlement embodies a fair and judicious way for Edison to become solvent and get back in the business of buying power, while meeting the needs of ratepayers and the state of California," said Loretta Lynch, President of the PUC. "The settlement also ensures that all of the benefits of any refunds arising through litigation against power generators and marketers that profited from unjust and unreasonable energy prices will benefit ratepayers." This agreement settles a November 2000 federal court lawsuit filed by Edison against the PUC, in which Edison claimed that the Commission's actions in not providing sufficient retail rates, violated federal law and was an unconstitutional taking of its property. Under this agreement, Edison will release the PUC from all claims in its lawsuit and will also withdraw any challenges to the Commission's decisions implementing AB 1X, AB 6X, and the TURN accounting proposal. -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:42 PM To: Dasovich, Jeff; Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa; Comnes, Alan Subject: California Update--10.02.01:Part 2: PUC Approves Edison Bailout In another surprise move, the PUC approved an Edison bailout today on a 5-0 vote. This item was not on the Commission's agenda other than as a placeholder regarding "litigation." We do not have copies of the agreement but we just talked to Edison's SVP of Regulatory Affairs and here's a summary: The Commission will keep current rates in place through 2003 Any "overcollection" resulting from keeping current rates in place will go to paying off $3.3 B in Edison's past due accounts (the so-called "undercollection") If Edison collects the $3.3B prior to 2003, then rates can change If Edison has not collected the $3.3 B by the end of 2003, the PUC will create a dedicated rate component on all bills to collect the remainder. Half the remainder will be collected in 2004 and the other half in 2005. Any refunds received from litigation against suppliers will go to reducing the $3.3 B undercollection. Edison can keep 10% of any refunds received after the $3.3B is paid off. Edison cannot pay any dividends during the time that it is using rates to pay off the $3.3B. Edison can apply to the PUC for approval to hedge gas price risk. Edison will be protected from any increases in DWR contract costs (i.e., if DWR's costs go up, the PUC will raise rates rather than take it out of Edison's rates) The PUC will not fine Edison during this period if Edison's capital structure varies from the PUC-approved capital structure Edison must drop its lawsuits against the PUC regarding 1) the "filed rate doctrine" and 2) the so-called "TURN" accounting method, which effectively kept the rate freeze in place. Edison agrees to "cooperate" with the Attorney General and the PUC in all litigation against suppliers. The PUC decision could likely nullify the need for the "special" session that the Governor recently announced We will report back with additional details as soon as we get them. Best, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:45 PM To: Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa Subject: California Update--10.02.01: PUC Turns Down Davis' Proposed Rate Agreement with DWR In what will likely be viewed as a fairly shocking event, the California PUC today voted down Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC. The vote was 4-1, with the two Republicans voting with Davis' hand-picked appointees Lynch and Wood. Davis' proposal was introduced at the meeting by another Davis appointee--Geoff Brown--who made a lengthy speech about why California would experience economic and political destruction if the PUC did not approve Davis' proposed rate agreement. What is Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC? It would remove all PUC authority to review any contracts between DWR with suppliers. It would require the PUC to pass through to utility rates all DWR power contract costs, no questions asked. What are the implications of the move by the PUC to reject Davis' proposal? With the vote, it remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the DWR power contracts. The political pressure to re-negotiate--or break--the DWR power contracts is likely to intensify considerably. It remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the $12.5 B in bonds the Treasurer has unsuccessfully attempted to issue for past several months. Under the structure devised by Davis, the revenues flowing from the CPUC/DWR rate agreement would be used to both 1) pay for the DWR power contracts and 2) service the bonds the Treasurer is trying to issue to repay California's General Fund for spot and other short term power purchased by DWR since January. In short, there is no clear indication of how California will pay for DWR contracts or issue the bonds. Safe to say that today's PUC vote has seriously embarrassed Davis, and left his approach to "solving" California electricity crisis in shambles. What Next? A broad left-right coalition of energy interests supported a bill (18XX) that passed the Legislature with broad bi-partisan support. The bill would create a "dedicated rate component" on every customers bill to service the $12.5 B in bonds that the Treasurer wants to issue. Proponents of the bill--and just about everyone else--argue that the "dedicated rate component" is a signficantly more efficient way to raise the debt California needs to plug the hole in its budget. The bill is silent, however, on how California would pay for the DWR contracts, and the bill's opponents claim that the power suppliers will sue as a result. All four PUC commissioners who voted against the Davis rate agreement today urged Davis to sign the bill. The left-right coalition (from Nader types to oil companies) is also working hard to get Davis to sign it. Davis has said that he will veto the bill on the advice of the Treasurer and bond counsel. Given today's vote, however, Davis may have no alternative than to sign the bill if he wants to get the bonds issued and the state budget repaid. Update on Edison Bailout Still appears that chances are very small that Edison and Davis will succeed in getting the Legislature to vote for an Edison bailout when it returns for another "special" session next Tuesday. If you have any questions, just let us know. Best, Jeff
|