RE: PG&E

My read of Mike's summary shows the one cent surcharge was re-characterized in Decision 01-03-082 to apply only to bundled accounts consistent with the treatment of the three cent surcharge. I think Mike's summary clearly expresses why Enron believes it should not have been invoiced this amount from March 27,2001 forward.

Thanks,

Wanda

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C.
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:10 AM
To: Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Huddleson, Diann; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.
Cc: Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: PG&E

I would ask Mike about the last sentence in bullet 5. Based on the language of the quote the Commission appears to be referring to the surcharge "adopted in D. 01-03-082." Was the .01 surcharge "adopted" in that proceeding? Maybe I am reading this too literally. I do agree that the rationale for exempting DA customers from the 3 cent surcharge applies equally to the 1 cent surcharge, and that we should continue to strive for this clarification at the CPUC (which Sue Mara is handling). Sue, I am forwarding this to you for your comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mellencamp, Lisa
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:49 AM
To: Curry, Wanda; Huddleson, Diann; Tribolet, Michael; Williams, Robert C.; Sanders, Richard B.
Subject: FW: PG&E

please let me know if any of you disagree/have comments
-----Original Message-----
From: Simmons, Linda J.
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:49 PM
To: Mellencamp, Lisa
Subject: FW: PG&E

-----Original Message-----
From: MDay <MDay@GMSSR.com<@ENRON
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:46 PM
To: Simmons, Linda J.
Subject: RE: PG&E

Here is our settlement sheet on the one cent surcharge, attached below.
Mike Day

- X28655.DOC [Mellencamp, Lisa] << File: X28655.DOC <<