As you all know, we don't think that anyone should get out of either their
actual obligations, which would mean anyone leaving now, or their share of
projected costs for future purchases by DWR.  Lenny
----- Original Message -----
From: William Booth <wbooth@booth-law.COM>
To: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>; <Ann.Cohn@sce.com>; <kmccrea@sablaw.com>;
<mkahl@ka-pow.com>; <jdasovic@enron.com>; William Booth
<wbooth@booth-law.COM>; <drothrock@camfg.com>; <smutny@iepa.com>;
<brbarkovich@earthlink.net>; <dominic.dimare@calchamber.com>;
<isenberg@hmot.com>; <jstewart@cmta.net>; <mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com>;
<lga@mother.com>; <debinorton@aol.com>; <cra@calretailers.com>;
<derek.naten@roche.com>; <vjw@cleanpower.org>; John R. Redding (PS, NE)
(E-mail) <john.redding@gene.GE.com>; Mike Florio (E-mail) <mflorio@turn.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: Bond Leg Language, etc.


> Jeff and all:  I agree with your thoughts as to the need for amendments re
> DA customers that have never purchased DWR power, call it amend. 1.  I
also
> agree with your proposal re customers that leave bundled service for
direct
> access service only having to pay for the costs actually incurred by DWR
on
> their behalf, call it amend. 2.  I think it is a stretch, however, to
> propose an exemption for any customer that leaves bundled for DA by
> September 1, call it amend. 3.  This appears to be inconsistent with
amend.
> 2.  I agree with you re amend. 4, deletion of language ending DA.  Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:07 PM
> To: Ann.Cohn@sce.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com; mkahl@ka-pow.com;
> jdasovic@enron.com; wbooth@booth-law.com; drothrock@camfg.com;
> smutny@iepa.com; brbarkovich@earthlink.net;
> dominic.dimare@calchamber.com; isenberg@hmot.com; jstewart@cmta.net;
> mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; lga@mother.com; debinorton@aol.com;
> cra@calretailers.com; derek.naten@roche.com; vjw@cleanpower.org; John R.
> Redding (PS, NE) (E-mail); Mike Florio (E-mail)
> Subject: Bond Leg Language, etc.
>
>
> Greetings:
>
> Hope everyone had a pleasant 4th.
>
> I've read the respective Burton and Hertzberg language on amending AB 1X.
> The Burton language looks cleaner and simpler, though there may be reasons
> to include some of the Hertzberg language, too.
>
> I'm proposing to the group the following as potential amendments to the
> bond bill.  I would appreciate your feedback.  The amendments would be as
> follows:
>
>    Customers who were on Direct Access when DWR started buying power (Jan.
>    17th?), and are still on Direct Access when the bill passes, should be
>    exempt from paying for the bonds.
>
> In short, customers should not be forced to pay for power twice--once from
> their ESP, and once from DWR.  Since these customers receive power
services
> from their ESP, they never consumed DWR power in the first place and it
> wouldn't be fair to require them to pay for it.
>
>    Customers who have been utility customers since DWR started buying
power
>    but subsequently switched to Direct Access should only pay for power
>    provided by DWR that they actually consumed, no more and no less.
>
> For example, if a customer was a utility customer when DWR started buying
> power but switched to Direct Access on May 1st, then the customer would
> only be responsible for reimbursing DWR for power deliveries that took
> place from Jan. 17th thru April 30th.
>
> I believe that we agreed on these concepts during the negotiations that
> took place over the past 4-5 weeks.  Or if we didn't explicitly agree
> during the talks, they seem to be principles on which we ought to be able
> to agree pretty easily now. And rather than leave the issue hanging, which
> can create unnecessary and costly uncertainty for customers, I suggest
that
> we include very clear and simple legislative language in the bond bill
> clarifying what customers' obligations are.  Your thoughts are
appreciated.
>
> In addition, we have talked quite a bit about providing customers with
> incentives in the attempt to get California out of the energy hole that it
> finds itself in.  Providing (20KW and above) customers with an incentive
to
> switch to Direct Access as soon as possible could 1) reduce the net short
> position that the state (and ultimately consumers) have to finance,
thereby
> reducing spot purchases and price volatility,  2) reduce electricity
> purchasing costs, and 3) reduce the burden on the state budget.
>
> With this in mind, I'm also proposing that the group consider an amendment
> to the bond bill that would exempt from bond charges any customer that
> switches to Direct Access by September 1st.
>
> Finally, it seems odd that the language directing the PUC to suspend
Direct
> Access is still in the bill.  If a dedicated rate component is created,
> that seems to eliminate altogether the need to suspend Direct Access.  And
> if that's the case, would it make sense to delete that language from the
> bill?
>
> Look forward to your comments and working with you to get support for and
> passage of the "core/noncore" proposal.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
> This e-mail is intended solely for use of the individual to whom it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of
> this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the
> original sender of this note.  Thank You.