|
|
Enron Mail |
I completely agree.
I think that this needs to be one of our messages to the CPUC - I think that once the aggregate % is exposed, it will not seem as frightening to the CPUC. Also, what if one of our messages to the CPUC speaks to the fact that they got what they want - no more customers will be signed to direct access, but don't retroactively suspend or retroactively assign arbitrary exit fees. Andrea Weller Market Strategist Strategic Energy, LLC 949.230.3404 aweller@sel.com -----Original Message----- From: Sandler, Vicki G(F62489) [mailto:Vicki_Sandler@apses.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'Dan Douglass'; ARM; Tamara Johnson; Sue Mara; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote; Rob Nichol; Randy Hickok; Nam Nguyen; Jim Crossen; Jeff Dasovich; Janie Mollon; Jack Pigott; Greg Blue; George Vaughn; Gary Ackerman; Ed Cazalet; Denice Cazalet Purdum; Curtis Kebler; Curt Hatton; Corby Gardiner; Charles Miessner; Carolyn Baker; Bill Ross; Karen Shea; Max Bulk Subject: RE: CRITICAL!! IMMEDIATE REVIEW NEEDED Importance: High I think there would be value in the various companies on this distribution who are serving direct access to be able to show that the amount of load now being served or recently signed up is not significant enough to jeopardize payment of the bonds. Anything less may not erase fears. Showing that the Constitutional impariment of contracts issue will cost more and do more damage than grandfathering those now seems to be one of the strongest courses of action for the Sept. 4 pleading. Perhaps Dan could confidentially be told generally how much load has or will have access by Sept 1 and he could aggregate the number and then it could be compared to the amount of long/or short supply is for the UDCs compared to the load left to pay for it. What do you think? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:23 PM To: ARM; Sandler, Vicki G(F62489); Tamara Johnson; Sue Mara; Steve Huhman; Roger Pelote; Rob Nichol; Randy Hickok; Nam Nguyen; Jim Crossen; Jeff Dasovich; Janie Mollon; Jack Pigott; Greg Blue; George Vaughn; Gary Ackerman; Ed Cazalet; Denice Cazalet Purdum; Curtis Kebler; Curt Hatton; Corby Gardiner; Charles Miessner; Carolyn Baker; Bill Ross; Karen Shea; Max Bulk Subject: CRITICAL!! IMMEDIATE REVIEW NEEDED THE COMMISSION HAS ISSUED A REVISED DRAFT OF THE BARNETT DECISION TODAY WHICH RETROACTIVELY SUSPENDS DIRECT ACCESS TO JULY 1. The cover letter states as follows: "This version differs from the draft mailed on August 15, 2001 in several ways. First, the effective date of the suspension has been changed from September 1, 2001 to July 1, 2001 (as proposed in the draft mailed June 15, 2001). Second, the draft decision clarifies that customers who have executed direct access contracts prior to July 1, 2001 may continue to receive power from electric service providers for the initial term of the contracts. Several other editorial and explanatory changes have also been made. Assembly Bill No. 1 from the First Extraordinary Session (AB1X) requires that direct access be suspended until the Department of Water Resources no longer supplies power to the customers of the three largest regulated electricity companies. It directs that the Commission determine the effective date of the suspension. In order to reduce the possibility of harm to customers and to resolve potential conflict, parties should comment on: (1) whether AB1X suspends the entire direct access program, including all transactions under that program, (2) how the Commission can comply with AB1X if it exempts written contracts for direct access executed before July 1, 2001 from the suspension, and (3) whether July 1, 2001 is an appropriate date for the suspension......Comments on the draft decision are permitted. Those comments are to be electronically served on the service list (for those who have electronic addresses) no later than 10:00 a.m. on September 4, 2001, and shall be filed with the Commission by 5:00 p.m. on that date." The specific wording in the Decision is: "The Legislature has directed this Commission to suspend direct access until DWR no longer procures power for the retail end-users, and we find it should be suspended effective July 1, 2001. The Legislative direction is clear; and the suspension should apply to SCE, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). In the interest of providing cost stability for current direct access customers, written contracts for direct access signed before July 1, 2001 are exempt from the suspension for the initial term of the contracts." It also provides that: "In comments on the draft decision, several parties questioned the need for the Commission to implement the legislative suspension of direct access as soon as July 1, 2001. By the draft decision mailed for comment to the parties on June 15, 2001, market participants were provided notice that direct access would be suspended as of July 1, 2001. The Commission postponed its consideration of the draft decision. However, we do not change the effective date of the suspension. The underlying legislation was introduced on January 3, 2001, enrolled and sent to the Governor on February 1, 2001, and signed by the Governor the same day. Market participants have now had eight months since then to prepare for this event. We do not wish to reward customers who have switched to direct access since July 1, 2001 in the hope that we would change the effective date of the suspension when this switch could disadvantage customers who continue to receive bundled service from the utility." The decision also states that no parties have raised any factual issues which would justify hearings, which presumably, although not explicitly, disposes of the joint AReM/WPTF filing. I presume we will want to file in strong opposition. Suggestions on strategy? It might be a good idea to have a conference call on this and get started immediately with raising a movement to counter this. Dan Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com<
|