|
|
Enron Mail |
For your information. The outcome was great for TW because the Cal. PUC
adopted our receipt point proposal, eliminating the danger of mandated restriction of TW's deliveries to the California border. The outcome is not so great for Enron overall because they rejected our proposed settlement. The receipt point proposal was able to survive since it was part of both of the competing settlements. I'm still trying to get thru the whole order; let me know if you have questions. S. ---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 11/27/2000 09:20 AM --------------------------- From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/22/2000 06:28 PM Sent by: Jeff Dasovich To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Bad Proposed Decision Well, this shows the direction in which the "new" Commission is heading. The very good news, though, is that TW's proposal was included in both settlements (now that's hedging!). Thus, the benefits to TW were preserved under both proposals. Congratulations. That's fantastic--hard work that paid off. We will of course express out extreme dissappointment with the PD, and point out that this decision condemns California to a 20th century infrastructure, when the state's 21st century economy demands much, much better. We should discuss. Since the PD empowers the likes of Norm and Florio, it will be important to play very close attention to implementation of Hector. Sorry to have to be the one to deliver the news. But we have a knack of making lemonade out of lemons and we'll do out best to do the same here, whatever turns up at the end. Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/22/2000 05:53 PM ----- Michael.Alexander@sce.com 11/22/2000 05:27 PM To: Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com, tomb@crossborderenergy.com, burkee@cts.com, craigc@calpine.com, rick.counihan@greenmountain.com, jdasovic@enron.com, MDay@GMSSR.com, Douglas.Porter@sce.com cc: Colin.Cushnie@sce.com, INGGM@sce.com Subject: The PD in the Gas Restructuring is out. I have yet to read the whole thing, but the title "Approval With Modifications Of The Interim Settlement..." does not bode well. According to Steve Watson (and I only have Steve's statement second hand), the decision reflects a fear that the timing is wrong in light of the current volatile gas price market. (See attached file: Proposed.doc) -- Michael S. Alexander Southern California Edison 626-302-2029 626-302-3254 (fax) - Proposed.doc
|