|
|
Enron Mail |
Another key point: to avoid the mistakes of California, policy makers must
make it easy to site and interconnect new generation. In California peak demand rose by about 5500 MW from 1996 - 2000. The market responded with porposed capacity additions of about 11000 MW. Most of these facilities are working thier way through the tangle of state and local approvals. The problems we saw in California did not need to occur if policy makers simply enabled the market to work. Also, it's worth noting that the deregulated market did work. Customers who signed with Enron saw a lower bill than prederegulation, Enron hedged its commitments and so our customers (and Enron) did just fine during the summer. Deregulation worked; the problems in California can be directly traced to continued regulatory interference in the market. Susan J Mara 11/17/2000 06:09 PM To: Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron, Christopher J Day/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Dawson/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: talking points on California situation Mark, Here's my shot. I did it in Revision mode so you can see the changes. Note that Enron never got out of the retail market in CA and has gathered about 1,000 MW of retail load -- we're bigger than all but two of the municipal utilities in the state. Enron stopped marketing to residential consumers -- that's what all the fuss was about in 1997. Anyone else feel free to take your own shot. Sue Mark Schroeder@ECT 11/17/2000 09:52 AM To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Dawson/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Christopher J Day/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron Subject: talking points on California situation Some of our people get asked on the phone about what is going on in California. I have drafted the attached paper for their use. It is intended to be simple and user-friendly. Your thoughts on whether I achieved that objectvie are welcome. More importantly, I need you to confimr that I got the story and facts correct, and that I have not said anything about the situation that you (Enron USA) would not want to say, or have not said, or if we have said something fundamentally different, I need to know that, too. thanks for taking the time to review. mcs
|