|
|
Enron Mail |
Catherine/Roger:
Here are some more details forwarded by our outside counsel. Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 05:44 PM ----- MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com< 02/27/2001 05:25 PM To: "'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'" <jdasovic@enron.com< cc: "'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'" <smccubbi@enron.com<, "'Sue Mara at Enron SF'" <smara@enron.com< Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks Jeff: Here is some more useful information. Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC spoke to the woman in person. The school in question is the Providence High School in Burbank, California (not Ontario), operated by the Sisters of Providence. Ms. Kathy Pentalio (sp?) at 818-846-8140 wrote to the CPUC asking about the school's options after receiving phone and letter notification that their gas service would be terminated by Enron. Apparently the Sisters also operate a hospital which is also served by Enron. Ms. Pentalio indicated that she was told that the school would no longer be served on the same contract as the hospital (claimed to be an attractive 86 cents/th rate) because the school's load was so small that it was a core customer, while the hospital was a noncore customer with a larger load. Neither Ms. Sarvate nor Ms. Pentalio was clear if the school was served as a core aggregation customer or as part of the Sisters of Providence noncore contract. Ms. Pentalio claimed she spoke with Enron employees Dennis Harris in Dublin, Ohio as well as Roger Pons in New Mexico. She indicated that service would be terminated on June 1, 2001 and she is looking for alternative sources of gas. Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC Energy Division would like to understand the specifics of this case, but her main concern, and the purpose for sending a letter (if she does send one) is that Dynergy has told her that a number of small noncore businesses are being returned to the utilities by marketers because they no longer meet credit requirements. She assumed that must be true with Enron as well. I indicated to her that she should never assume that we are doing what Dynegy is doing and that we would respond and advise her if there was any significant trend of noncore customer turnbacks. The Commission's concern, which I know you understand, is that it is phasing out the core subscription schedule (and has a moratorium on switches to the SoCalGas core subscription schedule) therefore leaving no place for such customers to go if they cannot contract with a replacement aggregator. Please advise me of what you discover about this matter and we can talk further about a response to the CPUC. Thank you. Mike Day
|