|
|
Enron Mail |
Please see attached file as solution to problems identified by Jim.
James D Steffes 08/16/2000 07:56 AM To: Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES cc: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Comments on Duque/ Wood Decisions -- Due TODAY 8/16 Bruno -- I completely disagree with this pleading. Direct access customers should not be afforded the same regulatory "bad policy" as bundled customers as relates to their energy component. If the regulatory fix was to reduce distribution rates for the period, then I would seek that fix. We, as Enron, have been loudly proclaiming that our direct access customers have managed their price exposure by locking in with a contract and price with us. We took the price exposure for our customers and managed it appropriately. If other members of ARM are not hedging their short retail position than they are just as "bad" as the utility. This is not the message we want to be sending. This pleading should say what Bruno's change proposes, and then little more. The competitive market looks like a bunch of "yahoos" for advocating markets and price volatility and then asking for handouts! Jim Bruno Gaillard 08/15/2000 08:47 PM To: Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Comments on Duque/ Wood Decisions -- Due TODAY 8/16 Attached is the first draft ARM's our comments. It will be revised, however we need to get comments in ASAP I asked Jeanne Bennett to change the third sentence in the introduction from "ARM does not dispute the need to offer relief..." to a statement that would reflect ARM's belief that the market will ultimately offer the best hedging tools for all customers, However, ARM recognizes that there is an immediate problem in SDG&E than can be mitigated on an interim basis with the Wood or Duque proposal. The paragraph will be redrafted to clarify the fact that we do not want the levelized payment plan to be the default for any customer class and that the LPP should be only offered to smaller customers on an optional basis as larger customers are more sophisticated and can find these options in the market. If you have concerns, please provide comments by 11 am CST on 8/16 as the filing is due on 8/16 ---------------------- Forwarded by Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES on 08/15/2000 06:41 PM --------------------------- JMB <JBennett@GMSSR.com< on 08/15/2000 03:34:25 PM To: "'ARM@Phaser.com'" <ARM@Phaser.com< cc: "'jleslie@luce.com'" <jleslie@luce.com<, "'bluden@greenmountain.com'" <bluden@greenmountain.com< Subject: Comments on Duque/ Wood Decisions -- Privileged -- Attorney Work Product Attached is a draft of the comments on Wood's and Duques' proposed decisions. It tracks our conversation of this morning. As you all know, these comments are due tomorrow. Please have all comments on the draft to me by no later than noon tomorrow (the 16th). <<X15748.DOC<< Jeanne - X15748.DOC
|