|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Mara, Susan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SMARA< X-To: Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jdasovic<, Blachman, Jeremy </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jblachma<, Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe<, Shapiro, Richard </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rshapiro<, Kean, Steven J. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Skean<, Kaufman, Paul </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Pkaufma<, Leff, Dan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Dleff<, Hughes, Evan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ehughes2<, Sharp, Vicki </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=dc350363-f761e300-862564c2-54998e<, Williams, Robert C. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rwillia2<, Dietrich, Janet </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jdietri<, Huddleson, Diann </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=42fc33c8-1b17856e-86256583-4c4c89<, Smith, Mike </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=625593fd-e80ad57a-862566bd-7e77e3<, Frazier, Lamar </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=3f111304-72dee4ff-8625699e-522b69<, Tribolet, Michael </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mtribole<, Mellencamp, Lisa </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lmellen<, Curry, Wanda </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Wcurry<, Swain, Steve </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Sswain< X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged)\Shapiro, Richard\Deleted Items X-Origin: Shapiro-R X-FileName: RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged).pst Gang: Further clarification on what happened at the pre-hearing conference today: The Judge set he would rule on only two issues at this time (most likely the ruling will be out within a week): 1. PX Audit -- The Commission will decide the issue on the current record (this is fine with us) 2. Implementation of Suspension of DA. -- This includes all the DASR issues, ability to make amendments as well as ESP assignments and the like. The Judge decided he could rule after paper hearings. The following schedule was agreed to: 11/16 -- Utilities file their proposal with the intent for it to be uniform for all three utilities 11/28 -- Parties file comments on utilities' proposal; may request hearings on specific issues and justify why needed (although the Judge already said he did not believe that hearings were necessary) 12/4 -- Parties file responses on the comments All other issues will be addressed at another Pre-hearing conference on 12/12. In response to a question, the Judge said he would not issue a ruling on the retroactive suspension of direct access at this time, but did not believe that hearings were required on the issue. He also said several times, however, that hearings would be required on all issues that involved dollars and cents. (To most logical people, this would seem to conflict with the notion that no hearings were required on the retroactivity issue -- but, hey, this is California.) Bottomline: This turned out better than we had expected. We wanted hearings on the money issues and any delay in addressing the retroactivity issue is good for our side. -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:23 PM To: Blachman, Jeremy; Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Kaufman, Paul; Leff, Dan; Hughes, Evan; Sharp, Vicki; Williams, Robert C.; Dietrich, Janet; Huddleson, Diann; Smith, Mike; Frazier, Lamar; Tribolet, Michael; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve Subject: Update on California PUC Hearing--DA Suspension Implementation; Exit Fees; PX Credit, etc.--11.07.01 Please forward along to others I may have missed but need to know: The Commission held a hearing this afternoon to discuss the need for hearings on issues surrounding the DA suspension. With minor exceptions, the utilities told the Commission that the Commission didn't need to conduct hearings, and that the Commission could just go forward with implementing the suspension and assess exit fees. The utilities said that hearings could be held "sometime later" to determine the exact level of exit fees and how the utilities ought to calcualte the PX credit going forward. A large group of business customers and suppliers disagreed strongly and made a very good case for hearings. There were lengthy arguments in front of the judge, at the end of which the judge decided that it would useful to hold another prehearing conference. The next hearing will be on Dec. 12th. The judge wanted another hearing to permit folks to have the opportunity to respond to the first round of comments on the issues submitted by everyone last Friday. In sum, there will be another hearing on Dec. 12th to further discuss the need for hearings prior to the Commission making decisions on these issues. At this point, it appears that the judge is leaning toward having comprehensive hearings. Of particular note, at the end of the hearing the judge said that he is NOT inclinded to recommend a retroactive suspension of Direct Access to July 1, and that he didnt' think that the PUC commissioner assigned to the case was either. (Worried that he said too much, he then said he couldn't/shouldn't spead for the commissioner.) The judge, and the Commissioner who was at the hearing, went on at length abouth the fact that no one submitted their DA contracts to the PUC (as requested in the document the PUC issued asking folks to submit comments on the issues). Our attorney and the attorneys for suppliers and customers told them that 1) the Commission didn't need to see the actual contracts to get the information necessary via hearings to decide the issues and 2) the Commission doesn't have the authority to ask to see contracts and they ain't likely going to get them without a fight. Though the probability many not be high, there is at least the chance that the Commission may try to subpoena folks to get the contracts. Seems prudent to at least be prepared for the possiblity. Interestingly, Edison made a run at getting the Commission to implement by January 1 its proposal to charge all customers--DA and bundled alike--for Edison's undercollection. The judge (literally) laughed off the request, and then said no. As a result, Edison didn't get the leverage it was hoping for prior to our follow up meeting with them tomorrow to discuss the Negative CTC issue. The judge also gave the DWR representative a pretty good thrashing, e.g., "why are you here, you refuse to be a party, you refuse to provide info," etc. From today's hearing it appears that DWR will come under increasing pressure to open the kimono and have its numbers scrutinized. In related news, Davis has announced that he's asked Sempra to meet to renegotiate their DWR contract and said that he'd thus far met with two other generators in "serious negotitations."
|