|
|
Enron Mail |
I think that California needs to make a final decision on whether it wants competitive markets or not. I wonder if PURPA has anything to say about meeting incremental Utility needs and what that does to the CDWR contracts?
I don't see Enron getting engaged in this quagmire unless there is a clear business reason. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mara, Susan Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:42 PM To: Parquet, David; Steffes, James D. Cc: Schoen, Mary; Dasovich, Jeff; Comnes, Alan; Kaufman, Paul Subject: BRPU Rides Again -- CPUC Begins "Integrated Resource Planning" Importance: High Dave and company, Here we go again. Dave, is this anything you want us to engage in? Jim, what do you think about this? -----Original Message----- From: Steven Kelly [mailto:steven@iepa.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:23 PM To: 'Aaron Thomas'; Alex Sugaoka (E-mail); Bill Woods (E-mail); Bob Ellery (E-mail); Bob Escalante (E-mail); Brian T. Cragg (E-mail); Carolyn A Baker (E-mail); Curtis Kebler (E-mail); Douglas Kerner (E-mail); 'Doyle Hibler'; Duane Nelsen (E-mail); Ed Maddox (E-mail); Ed Tomeo (E-mail); Eric Edstrom (E-mail); Greg Blue (E-mail); Hap Boyd (E-mail); Jack Pigott (E-mail); Joe Ronan (E-mail); John G. Larrea (E-mail); John O'Rourke (E-mail); Kate Castillo (E-mail); Ken Hoffman (E-mail); Kent Burton (E-mail); Kent Palmerton (E-mail); Mark J. Smith (E-mail); Marty McFadden (E-mail); Schoen, Mary; Michael L. Hawkins (E-mail); Nam Nguyen (E-mail); Paul Wood (E-mail); Paula Soos (E-mail); Peter H. Weiner (E-mail); Rachel King (E-mail); Rich Dyer (E-mail); Roger Pelote (E-mail); Ross Ain (E-mail); Scott Harlan (E-mail); Steve Ponder (E-mail); Steve Schleimer (E-mail); Susan J Mara (E-mail); Ted Cortopassi (E-mail); Tom Hartman (E-mail); Tony Wetzel (E-mail); Trond Aschehoug (E-mail); Ward Scobee (E-mail); 'Warren Mack' Cc: Andy Brown (E-mail); 'Carol Hudson (E-mail)'; Chris Ellison (E-mail); 'Jan Smutny-Jones (E-mail)'; 'Katie Kaplan (E-mail)'; 'Kelli Norton'; Sandra Moseley (E-mail); 'Steven Kelly (E-mail)'; Thomas R. McMorrow (E-mail); Gates, Bob; Charles Linthicum (E-mail); 'Cody Carter (E-mail)'; 'Curt Hatton (E-mail)'; Parquet, David; 'Dean Gosselin (E-mail)'; 'Eileen Koch (E-mail)'; 'Eric Eisenman (E-mail)'; 'Frank DeRosa (E-mail)'; 'Hap Boyd (E-mail)'; 'Hawks Jack (E-mail)'; 'Jim Willey (E-mail)'; 'Joe Greco (E-mail)'; John Stout (E-mail); 'Jonathan Weisgall (E-mail)'; 'Kelly Lloyd (E-mail)'; 'Kent Fickett (E-mail)'; 'Lynn Lednicky (E-mail)'; Fillinger, Mark; 'Randy Hickok (E-mail)'; Scott Sadler (E-mail); 'Stephanie Newell (E-mail)'; Steve Iliff (E-mail); William Carlson (E-mail) Subject: CPUC Initiating Rulemaking on "Integrated Resource Planning" Importance: High The IEP Regulatory Affairs Committee over the past few weeks has been discussing the prospects of state agencies (e.g. the CEC) pursuing a long-term (1-2 year) strategy of re-introducing centralized, Integrated Resource Planning in California. Indeed, some CEC staff have used sought to obtain planning/modelling authorities that could lead to dispatch instructions or, perhaps, identification of generation units for "retirement." The CPUC is opening a rulemaking (OIR) to return to "integrated resource planning." The BRPU returns! Anyway, we will be discussing this further at the Regulatory Affairs conference call next Tuesday. We will provide additional information on the OII as soon as it becomes available. -----Original Message----- From: Andy Brown [mailto:abb@eslawfirm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:36 AM To: Steven Kelly; doug kerner; Jan Smutny-Jones Subject: highlights from CPUC meeting Importance: High FYI. Highlights from today's CPUC meeting. It is still in progress, with few energy items remaining. Regular results memo to follow. CPUC opens new rulemaking to return to "integrated resource planning" with contemplation of process that sounds much like the discredited Biennial Resource Plan Update (BRPU) proceeding. Clearly contemplates utility construction of new generation projects, but also calls for life-cycle cost analysis of all options, including new asset construction, power purchase agreements, conservation, transmission, etc. CPUC rejects new interstate transmission facilities as not needed for reliability purposes (lines to NV, AZ and MX). Will begin new phase re economic projects. CPUC rejects request for clarification regarding QF contract amendments. Parties had requested clarification from CPUC decision based on language in Admin Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that stated extensions could go forward until the Commission acts. CPUC states that parties remain free to negotiation changes, but that they must move forward on ordinary review process. This decision primarily undermines QF contract amendments with SCE's. CPUC rejects PG&E's call for market valuation of retained generation. PG&E argued that CPUC must use market value of retained assets to set cost of service rates. CPUC rejects argument. Duque will concur, but notes that there are outstanding issues including the likelihood that CPUC will fail to meet statutory deadline to market value retained assets, and fact that PG&E still has stranded cost recovery rights that require market valuation. It is also unclear, notwithstanding the CPUC settlement with SCE, how post-transitions period costs will be recovered per that agreement. -- Andrew Brown Sacramento, CA andybrwn@earthlink.net
|