|
|
Enron Mail |
I'm leaving for Houston at noon today, but could participate by phone. Jus=
t=20 let me know. =09Andrew Wu@EES =0910/25/2000 08:19 AM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L= =20 Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron =09=09 cc: Edwin Essandoh/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Carter/HOU/EES@EES =09=09 Subject: Re: CTC definition Sue, Mona, and Dasovich-- Would one of you be available for about 30 mins or so tomorrow p.m. (Thurs)= =20 to square away this issue (maybe around 3 or 4 or so)? My recollection of= =20 our original contract language was to capture all of the post-transition=20 period CTCs as set forth in AB1890, so maybe we just need to broaden or=20 clarify what we mean by "residual CTCs". I'll actually be at 101 Cal=20 starting in the p.m. tomorrow, so this could work out pretty well. =20 Otherwise, I'll be in SR on Friday and then in SoCal next week but back in= =20 SFO on next Weds for a two day LSI seminar (Dasovich you're speaking at it?= )=20 Thurs and Fri so we could discuss then too. Sorry for the short notice and I hope I'll at least be able to say hi to=20 everyone tomorrow. Andy ---------------------- Forwarded by Andrew Wu/HOU/EES on 10/25/2000 08:14 A= M=20 --------------------------- Edwin Essandoh 10/24/2000 02:41 PM To: Tim Carter/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES cc: =20 Subject: Re: CTC definition Sorry Guys, should have cc'd you. Ed ---------------------- Forwarded by Edwin Essandoh/HOU/EES on 10/24/2000=20 02:40 PM --------------------------- Edwin Essandoh 10/24/2000 02:27 PM To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff=20 Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron cc: =20 Subject: Re: CTC definition =20 Roger,=20 Thanks for the input. It does need some refinement. For that matter, do y= ou=20 consider the definition of "CTC charges" adequate? Andy Wu is going to be = in=20 San Francisco on Thursday, and has agreed to discuss the language with Susa= n,=20 Jeff and/or Mona in Gov't Affairs. Ed Roger Yang 10/24/2000 01:19 PM To: Edwin Essandoh/HOU/EES@EES cc: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona Petrochko= =20 Subject: Re: Contract for Gart Sports =20 Attached is a version of AB1890. I refer you to pages 31 through 36 which= =20 discusses Sections 367 through 368. Residual CTCs may have two connotations. The first connotation is the type= =20 of CTC recovery during the rate freeze period. For example, the California= =20 IOUs bill customers based on frozen rates. From those frozen rates, delive= ry=20 and procurement costs are subtracted. What is left over residually is the= =20 recovery of CTCs. The interpretation that you are implementing is the CTCs= =20 that are recovered after the frozen rate period. Due to these two possible= =20 interpretations, I believe that either the term "residual CTCs" needs to be= =20 defined or a better definition of the "Pre-Rolloff Period" and "Post-Rollof= f=20 Period." After reading the cites that I referred to above, if you believe the=20 definition incorporates the guidelines implemented through Sections 367 and= =20 368, then I will be comfortable with the current language. My concern was= =20 that the CPUC may adopt changes to the recovery plan per Section 368 that= =20 would disadvantage ESPs and DA customers, and only benefit and protect=20 Standard Offer customers. Pursuant to Section 368, the IOUs implemented co= st=20 recovery plans to recover costs that meet the criteria in Section 367. I a= m=20 worried that customers may be confused by plans that may be implemented in = a=20 the Post-Rolloff periods that may look like the original cost recovery plan= s=20 (i.e. SDG&E's rate cap). You can contact Susan Mara, Jeff Dasovich, or Mona Petrochko in Government= =20 Affairs for better clarification if needed. Edwin Essandoh 10/24/2000 09:21 AM To: Tim Carter/HOU/EES@EES cc: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES=20 Subject: Re: Contract for Gart Sports =20 The reference to "but not including any extension pursuant to Section=20 3(g)(ii)" should have been deleted from the contract. It was in a previou= s=20 contract which provided for an extension period, but is not applicable here= . =20 Tim: We could forward corrected page to customer, but I agree that it may= =20 not be necessary as it does not add anything but may unnecessarily alarm=20 Customer. Roger: Can you suggest a definition you'd be comfortable with, which=20 references the code section - I have not seen the code, but your point is= =20 valid (although I was under the impression "residual CTC's" is understood i= n=20 the industry, and the second issue (as raisesd by Tim previously) would be = to=20 maek sure an amendment to AB 1890 does not extend the Pre-Rolloff Period. My initial suggestion would be along the lines of: =01&Pre-Rolloff Period=018 shall mean, with respect to each Facility, t= he=20 period of time commencing with the=20 Effective Date and ending on the last day the UDC for such Facility is= =20 authorized to collect CTCs (other than residual CTCs=20 it remains authorized to collect after said date) in its service=20 territory under AB1890 (as in effect on the Effective Date), but in an= y=20 event not later than March 2002. Ed =20 =09Enron Energy Services =09 =09From: Tim Carter 10/24/2000 10:15 AM =09Phone No: tel: 713-853-5496 fax: 713-646-3284 pgr: 888-620-2350 =09 To: Edwin Essandoh/HOU/EES@EES cc: =20 Subject: Contract for Gart Sports Ed, please see comments below regarding the Gart Sports contract. How shou= ld=20 we handle? ---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Carter/HOU/EES on 10/24/2000 10:15 = AM=20 --------------------------- Roger Yang 10/23/2000 04:19 PM To: Tim Carter/HOU/EES@EES cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES=20 Subject: Re: DASH for Gart Sports =20 Tim, Thanks for forwarding me the contract. In Section 3(a), there is a=20 definition for "Post-Rolloff Period" which states, "shall mean, with respec= t=20 to each Facility, the period of time commencing with the day after the last= =20 day of the Pre-Rolloff Period.....but not including any extension period=20 pursuant to Section 3(g)(ii). The problem is that I cannot find Section=20 3(g)(i) in the contract. Further, the definition of "Pre-Rolloff Period" which states, "...ending on= =20 the last day the UDC for such Facility is authorized to collect CTCs (but= =20 excluding residual CTCs) in its service territory under AB1890," is=20 ambiguous. There are two possible solutions. One possible solution is to= =20 define the term "residual CTCs". Another solution is to redraft the langua= ge=20 to be more specific referencing the PU Codes Section 367 and 368 enacted by= =20 AB1890. Roger =09Enron Energy Services =09 =09From: Tim Carter 10/19/2000 02:21 PM =09Phone No: tel: 713-853-5496 fax: 713-646-3284 pgr: 888-620-2350 =09 To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES=20 Subject: Re: DASH for Gart Sports =20 You are correct regarding the impact to the mark if the transition period= =20 ends differently than we expect. The contract specifies that the transition period ends in accordance with= =20 AB1890, as noted in the attatched Gart contract. We have, however,=20 instructed the attorney to change the contract template to also specify tha= t=20 under no circumstances is the transition period to be later than 3/2002. I= =20 have not received a version of that contract. Roger Yang 10/19/2000 04:10 PM To: Tim Carter/HOU/EES@EES cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES=20 Subject: Re: DASH for Gart Sports =20 I like this deal structure because it provides a hedge for our current book= =20 in California. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the end of the transition= =20 period ends earlier than priced, then our mark for this deal should increas= e=20 because we are providing the discount off the frozen bundled price for a=20 shorter period than expected. Conversely, if the rate freeze ends later th= an=20 how we priced it, then the mark for this deal will decrease because we will= =20 have provided a discount off of the frozen tariff for a period longer than = we=20 had priced. This impact on the mark is converse to the current risk profil= e=20 of our California portfolio. My main concern is the contract language on how the transition period is=20 defined. It is important that this language is crafted to leave no loose= =20 ends. Can you please send me a copy of the clauses that define the end of= =20 the transition period, which is a critical date because the delivery risks= =20 hinge on that definition. I just want to do some preventative maintenance,= =20 such that we do not enter contract dispute over this issue in the future. = =20 However, we may proceed signing this contract if necessary. I would just= =20 like to follow up on the issue for future deals if it is too late for this= =20 deal. As a matter of fact, I would not even try to change the contract=20 language on this deal because the customer may become overly concern. I recommend that Scott signs the DASH for Gart Sports for now. Roger =09Enron Energy Services =09 =09From: Tim Carter 10/19/2000 08:16 AM =09Phone No: tel: 713-853-5496 fax: 713-646-3284 pgr: 888-620-2350 =09 To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES cc: =20 Subject: DASH for Gart Sports Roger, I think Valerie tried to fax this to you. Here's an electronic copy= . =20 Take a look, if you have any questions, please call me. Thanks, Tim
|