RE: Discussion of California Background & Issues

Jim, would it be logical to go back to March 27 (or whatever the date of the order was made that made this permanent). And I'm not sure how it could hurt us with our customers. They have a fixed price contract. We absorbed this charge. Wouldn't the refund be ours?

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:16 AM
To: Williams, Robert C.
Subject: RE: Discussion of California Background & Issues

Bob --

For certain we are seeking to not have the 1 c/kwh Surcharge post March 2002. I think that I would be happy to begin to try and get the CPUC to modify their Order right now, but my real concern (maybe unfounded) is that we don't want the CPUC to go all the way back to Jan 4 and refund the 1c/kwh to Direct Access customers. I thought this would harm EES given our de-dasr activities? This is what I mean by "finessing" the issue too much. The only legitimate positions are no application back to Jan 4 or to fight for a clean-up after the retail rate freeze ends.

I make this based on the following. First, it is hard for EES to push much at the CPUC. Second, after the CPUC takes what will be a potentially direct access killing action on Aug 23, I don't think they are going to be interested in dealing with a "detail" that matters for only for direct access customers. Finally, I need to understand the value of this effort in line with the other key value drivers - and also, are you completely sure that there isn't a change (however unforseen) that could hurt another of our positions. Let's not create a fuss if the outcome could be harmful.

I'm ready to push for this, but I want to make sure that everyone on the business side understands the issues.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C.
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:41 PM
To: Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: Discussion of California Background & Issues

Jim, first let me say that this is great for someone like me who is relatively new to California. Next, with respect to item 6, this implies to me that we are not seeking relief from the 1 cent except for the post-March 2002 time period. Have I misread this? Also, I don't think a ruling by the Commission either way could negatively affect our "tax" argument. I view them as alternative ways to get to the same point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 5:53 PM
To: Whalley, Greg; Delainey, David; Lavorato, John; Dietrich, Janet; Leff, Dan; Sharp, Vicki; Haedicke, Mark E.; Sanders, Richard B.; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Black, Don; Belden, Tim; Swain, Steve; Tribolet, Michael; Kingerski, Harry; Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Stoness, Scott
Cc: Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Discussion of California Background & Issues

Attached please find the write-up on California.

The paper includes four sections - (1) Background & Status, (2) Upcoming Issues & Recommendations, (3) Legislative and Regulatory History of California Restructuring, and (4) Summary of PG&E - Enron Correspondence on Payment of Negative CTC.

We have also pulled together most of the primary documents (CPUC Orders, Legislation, etc.) that are discussed in this paper. This material is quite lengthy and if anyone wants a copy, please let me know (I intend to send one to Tim Belden/Steve Swain).

If we need to hold a meeting to discuss any of this, I'll be happy to set something up for tomorrow.

Thanks,

Jim

<< File: Background on California Restructuring.doc <<