|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: james.steffes@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com,
paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, skean@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: james.steffes@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, skean@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: Richard Shapiro X-cc: James D Steffes, Karen Denne, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman, Sandra McCubbin, skean@enron.com, Susan J Mara X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Thanks. With that, unless I hear otherwise from folks by 4 PM PST---and al= l=20 suggestions on how to make the comment better are welcome and=20 appreciated---I'll go ahead and forward on to Art O'Donnell. =09Richard Shapiro =0911/30/2000 02:45 PM =09=09 =09=09 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron =09=09 cc: mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, skean@enron.com= , Paul=20 Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J=20 Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron =09=09 Subject: Re: Press Statement on Bad PUC Gas Decision? Need to decide= by 4 PM=20 (PST) I would say we engage on this and other issues in California in a more=20 assertive manner- message is fine. Laying low and working backchannels is= =20 working great so far??? NOT From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/30/2000 02:41 PM Sent by: Jeff Dasovich To: mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, skean@enron.com, Richa= rd=20 Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra=20 McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D=20 Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: =20 Subject: Press Statement on Bad PUC Gas Decision? Need to decide by 4 PM= =20 (PST) As you know, we've been working for about an eternity to unbundle SoCalGas'= =20 system. 90+% of the industry agreed to an unbundling solution and filed it= =20 as a settlement at the Commission. In opposition, muni generators and TURN= =20 supported SoCalGas' original proposal to essentially maintain the status qu= o=20 (SoCalGas eventually came over to our side, as did Southern California=20 Edison). =20 A judge's proposed decision came out the day before Thanksgiving adopting t= he=20 settlement advocated by the muni generators and TURN. =20 If it weren't for the continual barrage of retrograde policy pronouncements= =20 coming from the "new" California PUC, folks would be genuinely shocked by t= he=20 judge's proposed decision, but as things are, it was somewhat expected. There's one silver lining: We managed to get in both settlements an=20 identical provision that eliminates a substantial amount of financial risk = TW=20 would have faced but for the provision. So from that perspective, the choi= ce=20 to go with the TURN/muni settlement and embrace the status quo does no harm= . =20 It does considerable harm, however, when compared to the significant value= =20 that would have been created if the judge adopted the the unbundling=20 settlement. We have a chance to go on the record in a trade publication "California=20 Energy Markets." Recent events might persuade us to keep a low profile=20 generally at this point. On the other hand, perhaps the time is right to= =20 start coming out of our corner just a bit and pointing out the very poor jo= b=20 this Commission is doing in managing California's energy policy. I'm=20 squarely on the fence at this point and am seeking feedback. A proposed=20 comment is attached. =20 Two questions: 1) Do folks think that there's value in providing a comment? 2) If so, does this statement work, or do folks have suggestions? Thanks, Jeff "The California Public Utilities Commission has a choice. It can adopt the= =20 same, common sense natural gas policy for Southern California that=01,s bee= n in=20 place and working well for consumers in PG&E=01,s service territory. Or it= =20 stick with the status quo, which the industry agrees is at least partially= =20 responsible for bottlenecks and high prices in California. The proposed=20 decision opts for the status quo. That's not going to California=01,s natu= ral=20 gas problems and it=01,s likely to make matters worse in California's elect= ric=20 industry."
|