Message-ID: <32417325.1075843564816.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:40:00 -0800 (PST) From: sgovenar@govadv.com To: james.d.steffes@enron.com, rshapiro@enron.com, jdasovic@enron.com, mday@gmssr.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, smara@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com Subject: Status of efforts to fix Direct Access ban in ABX -1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Scott Govenar X-To: Jim Steffes , Rick Shapiro , Jeff Dasovich , Mike Day , Paul Kaufman , Sandra McCubbin , Susan J Mara , "Harry.Kingerski@enron.com" X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\California crisis X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf We are now engaged with a large coalition of customer groups committed to passing language in a Bowen bill (a spot bill SBX - 27 has been introduced for this purpose by Bowen) to fix the language in ABX -1 which permits a ban on new direct access agreements. We have committed to Bowen to get her staff a first attempt at draft language by close of business tomorrow. The attachment to this email is a draft which has been discussed by the customers group coalition. We would like to have input on this language by 11 am PST tomorrow if at all possible. Please email responses to Mike Day at mday@gmssr.com or calling 415-279-0702. The aim of the bill is to provide specific direction to the DWR and CPUC so that they cannot use their discretion to make customer choice more difficult. In addition to the language in the draft attachment, several other issues were discussed on the call. Please comment on these as well if you can. 1. In sub para. (c) it was felt we should carefully define the stranded costs DWR might face so they have to show actual damage from a customer leaving. CMA proposed defining these "actual costs" as "the costs that DWR cannot reasonably avoid until one or more of its long term power contracts expire." Thus, if the load electing direct access fits within the DWR short term purchases, there are no stranded costs and no exit fee. 2. Should there a limitation on the number of times a customer can switch into and out of the bundled service portfolio? CMA and other customers were willing to live with a limit of one switch a year. 3. Should customers be required to give DWR notice of their desire to return or the expiration of their direct access deal? There was some willingness to do this, balanced against a desire to not be too specific or to do DWR's work for them. 4. The large customers were very uncomfortable with having the definition between small customers who could switch without restriction and large customers who could not be 500 Kw. That is the number the core/noncore advocates are pushing as a dividing line. The group would prefer that the limit be 100 Kw, which is the limitation adopted in AB 265, the SDG&E rate cap bill from the end of last session. Thus the 100 kW figure has a legislative connection, but still allows a fair number of commercial customers to have unlimited flexibility to switch. This is detailed and prescriptive language, but the customer group parties were strongly convinced that any effort to craft regulations at the CPUC would be much worse, leading to the desire to limit the CPUC's discretion with specific language. At this stage, after hearing that CPUC Comm. Wood hoped to use ABX -1 to end direct access ( a comment made to NEV or Greenmountain), we tend to agree. We will get a better negotiated result at the legislature than at the CPUC. Thanks in advance for your fast turnaround on this. Mike Day - subscription.protocols.doc