Message-ID: <6820611.1075851663733.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:56:59 -0700 (PDT) From: susan.mara@enron.com To: wanda.curry@enron.com Subject: RE: PG&E Cc: diann.huddleson@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com, c..williams@enron.com, b..sanders@enron.com, lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: diann.huddleson@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com, c..williams@enron.com, b..sanders@enron.com, lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com X-From: Mara, Susan X-To: Curry, Wanda X-cc: Huddleson, Diann , Tribolet, Michael , Williams, Robert C. , Sanders, Richard B. , Mellencamp, Lisa , Steffes, James D. , Dasovich, Jeff X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Inbox X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst I reviewed the document and it seems fairly accurate. I have a slight disa= greement with one statement, as follows: "The Commission's reference to "su= rcharge" can be interpreted to mean both the one cent and three cent surcha= rges given that both surcharges were granted similar treatment in D.01-03-0= 82." I don't agree that this is so black and white. One can also take the= interpretation that it was meant to apply only to the 3 cent and not to th= e 1 cent surcharge. Obviously, SCE took the former interpretation and PG&E= the latter. That is one reason why we have been very careful about attack= ing this issue. AReM has protested PG&E charging the one cent surcharge a= nd supported Edison's approach in responding to the advice letters filed mo= nths ago. AReM continues to work with the CPUC staff to get the staff to s= upport AReM when it responds to the advice letters. Be aware that there ar= e strong forces working against ESPs and anything potentially favorable to = them. The more we can accomplish this under the radar screen, the better of= f we will be. Commissioner Wood is still attacking retroactivity and many h= ave raised the "cost shifting" issue. In other words, we can still lose th= e 3 cent exclusion. We have to be careful how we proceed. -----Original Message----- From: =09Curry, Wanda =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:28 PM To:=09Mara, Susan Subject:=09FW: PG&E Lisa had asked that I give you a call re the attached file. I think you ar= e the most knowledgeable to review it and provide comments. We will be usi= ng this in the meeting with PG&E on Thursday. Thanks, Wanda -----Original Message----- From: =09Mellencamp, Lisa =20 Sent:=09Monday, October 22, 2001 9:49 AM To:=09Curry, Wanda; Huddleson, Diann; Tribolet, Michael; Williams, Robert C= .; Sanders, Richard B. Subject:=09FW: PG&E please let me know if any of you disagree/have comments -----Original Message----- From: =09Simmons, Linda J. =20 Sent:=09Friday, October 19, 2001 3:49 PM To:=09Mellencamp, Lisa Subject:=09FW: PG&E -----Original Message----- From: =09MDay @ENRON =20 Sent:=09Friday, October 19, 2001 3:46 PM To:=09Simmons, Linda J. Subject:=09RE: PG&E Here is our settlement sheet on the one cent surcharge, attached below. Mike Day - X28655.DOC [Mellencamp, Lisa] << File: X28655.DOC >>