Enron Mail

From:kristin.walsh@enron.com
To:john.lavorato@enron.com, louise.kitchen@enron.com
Subject:California Update p.2; 5/29/01
Cc:christopher.calger@enron.com, christian.yoder@enron.com,steve.hall@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, phillip.allen@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com, tim.heizenrader@enron.com
Bcc:christopher.calger@enron.com, christian.yoder@enron.com,steve.hall@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, phillip.allen@enron.com, tim.belden@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com, tim.heizenrader@enron.com
Date:Tue, 29 May 2001 17:47:00 -0700 (PDT)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
?=09Senator Keeley Spearheads a New "Plan B"
?=09State to Offer Little Aid in PG&E Bankruptcy

Keeley's Collective "Plan B"
Sources report that additional details for the Plan B have just been ironed=
out on the Assembly side. The Assembly is working to announce a plan "as =
soon as possible"; this announcement could come this afternoon. If it is n=
ot this afternoon, it will be later this week. Sources Report the Republi=
cans were working with Keeley, but then felt shut out of the process, so th=
ey developed a plan of their own (a lightly publicized point last week). H=
owever, sources believe that the Plan B is very likely to have enough Repub=
lican support to pass the Assembly. The Senate will likely be a much tough=
er fight, but opposition to the plan remains pessimistic that they will be =
able to stop it. The Senate appears likely to broaden the base of people w=
ho would have to pay the dedicated rate component, which will be unpopular.=
Borrowing from elements of the Joe Nation and Florez "Plan B's," Keeley's=
new plan is said to:
?=09Set up a dedicated rate component for SoCal to deal with part of their =
undercollect. This dedicated rate component would apply more to "high-end =
customers." Where the line would be drawn between who would pay and who wo=
uld not is still subject to negotiation. The size of the dedicated rate co=
mponent is also subject to negotiation. SoCal has suggested $3M for 10 to =
12 years. Note, sources report that at this time, a dedicated rate compone=
nt for SoCal to pay for power going forward is NOT included in the Plan B t=
hat will be announced. The Assembly is not certain whether this additional=
dedicated rate component will be needed. If the bond issuance is enough t=
o cover the cost of power purchases, no dedicated rate component for forwar=
d purchases will be needed. By 2003 and 2004, enough additional generation=
should be online that power prices should be low. Therefore, the key ques=
tion becomes what will be the cost of power in 2002? If the cost of power =
is high, rates may have to be increased at that time for SoCal to continue =
operating.
?=09The state would make a secured loan (secured against the transmission a=
ssets) to SoCal to pay back the remainder of the undercollect. This loan w=
ould be paid back by SoCal granting the government a lower rate of return o=
n the transmission system for a period of 10 to 15 years. This provides an=
incentive for SoCal to sell its transmission system to the state, since it=
would not be making as much money from the system. Were this to happen, t=
he value would be credited toward the loan.
?=09In return, the state would receive the withdrawal with prejudice of the=
filed rate doctrine case. Also, SoCal would reduce the price of native po=
wer generation. Finally, business customers (including those that would ha=
ve to pay the dedicated rate component) would have the right to apply for d=
irect access to power.
If this plan is passed, (better than 50/50 chance -as reported earlier) the=
constitutional challenge from Michael Sturmwasser is still likely to go fo=
rward. This is because Sturmwasser is chiefly concerned with the fact that=
the plan results in a retroactive rate increase to pay SoCal's undercollec=
t. Sources believe it is likely that SoCal will eventually sell its transm=
ission assets to the state if this plan is passed. Therefore these assets =
would become municipal, making the reduction in the PUC's authority constit=
utional.

Legislature Leaves PG&E to Throws of Bankruptcy
Today, there have been discussions concerning PG&E regarding "Plan B" and t=
he legislature. Currently, the legislature is NOT considering offering Ke=
eley's "Plan B" solution to PG&E. If the Plan B mentioned above passes the=
Senate, it is more likely that the state will purchase PG&E out of bankrup=
tcy. Both the Assembly and the Senate leadership are talking seriously abo=
ut purchasing PG&E out of bankruptcy, though the Republicans remain strongl=
y opposed. The state then, would likely sell off pieces of PG&E (except fo=
r the transmission assets, which it would retain).