|
|
Enron Mail |
The notion that it would have to be a monthly analysis sounds like pure
Roger, and could likely be correct. But we need to determine whether we can get what we need by doing a "less precise" annual versus a "monthly." Seems that once we've made that call, we direct the scenario and they do it. Thoughts? Best, Jeff Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 03/07/2001 09:36 AM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: California Rate Assessment (371.35) Any suggestions to expedite the process? Robert ----- Forwarded by Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 03/07/2001 09:38 AM ----- "Bill Monsen" <wam@mrwassoc.com< 03/06/2001 10:31 PM To: Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com cc: ryy@mrwassoc.com, rbw@mrwassoc.com Subject: Re: California Rate Assessment (371.35) Robert, Thanks for the note. A conference call at 12:30 pm PST would work for us. However, on that call, we will not be able to present results of the additional scenarios that you defined in your e-mail. The model that we used was an annual rate model. The analysis that you are proposing would require a monthly model, which would take additional time to develop. Perhaps we should discuss this prior to the call at 2:30 pm CST. Roger and I will give you a call when we get into the office on Wednesday morning. This should be around 11 am CST. Best regards, Bill At 05:32 PM 3/6/01 , Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com wrote: <Bill and Roger, < <Thanks for the quick turn-around on the analysis. I hope the weekend was <not totally ruined. After review of the study, we thought it would be <useful to further expand the scenarios into a Worst, Base and Best Case. <The scenarios we would like you to run are outlined in the attached file. <Each scenario would reflect a wet, dry and normal weather case. <Please note that each scenario has a different date for surcharge <implementation. The Best Case reflects the date included in your original <analysis. Along those lines, would you please expand on the rationale for <assuming the 1/01/02 implementation date. < <In addition to reflecting the rate impact on a cents per kwh basis, please <include a percent impact as well. < <Like our original request, we are on a fast-track. We would like to <schedule a conference call for 2:30 p.m. central time Wednesday (March 7) <to discuss the results of your analysis. Hopefully, the data you have <already generated can be quickly "massaged" to accomodate the scenarios <requested. < <Please call me at 713 853 3170 if you have any questions. < <Robert < <(See attached file: California Rate Scenarios.doc)
|