Message-ID: <20882486.1075852600674.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To: mflorio@turn.org
Subject: RE: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing Suspension
 of DA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDASOVIC>
X-To: Mike Florio <mflorio@turn.org>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Shankman-J
X-FileName: JSHANKM (Non-Privileged).pst

So I'm assuming that you support the plan?
 
Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mike Florio 
Sent: Mon 9/24/2001 11:13 PM 
To: Dasovich, Jeff 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing Suspension of DA



I have a new description of PG&E's reorg plan-- it is the ultimate
expression of their longstanding affliction with Enron-envy.  Now that
they're cutting loose the UDC/LDC, they can fall flat on their faces with
no safety net (except the hydro, of course).   MIKE


At 04:43 PM 9/24/2001 -0500, you wrote:


> >  Commissioners Henry M. Duque and Richard A. Bilas, dissenting:
> >
> > One could say that this order is consistent with the Administration's
> > present third world country mentality. We are punishing the very
> > consumers and providers who made a commitment to ensuring electric
> > restructuring did work by adding a demand retail component to cure the
> > dysfunctions in the wholesale market.
> >
> > We are not convinced that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) bond
> > ratings depend on killing direct access.  This notion is a scare
> > tactic and a smoke screen. Direct access comprises such a small
> > percentage of overall demand that it cannot reasonably be seen to be a
> > threat to the sale of the bonds. Direct Access should be seen as a
> > benefit to DWR.  It would decrease the amount of the utilities net
> > short obligations and relieve DWR from its power purchasing
> > responsibilities sooner.
> >
> > Something else is going on here. We think that the DWR does not want
> > direct access because if the public is presented with alternatives, it
> > will make DWR's purchasing mistakes abundantly clear. The Commission
> > should be holding hearings to test the assertions being made by DWR,
> > Finance and the Treasurer.  Instead, the Commission is making an ill
> > informed, panicked decision to act now and study the repercussions
> > later.
> >
> >       DWR and the bonds should not be threatened by direct access if
> > DWR is making prudent energy purchases. Only if DWR's contracts are
> > too expensive, relative to market, will customers seek shelter in
> > lower direct access prices. Indeed, retaining direct access as a way
> > to send price signals to consumers may be the only way to place
> > pressure on DWR to make more prudent purchases. This is a very
> > important consideration since AB 1X prevents us from engaging in any
> > prudency review of the DWR costs to be passed through to ratepayers in
> > order to repay the bonds. If there is no yardstick, how can anyone
> > measure DWR performance? The answer is, one can't, unless SB 18xx is
> > signed into law.
> >
> >       We think that additional review of these issues, before
> > suspending direct access, would have produced a more sound decision in
> > the long run.
> >
> > For these reasons we must respectfully dissent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > /s/ HENRY M. DUQUE                              /s/ RICHARD A. BILAS
> >         Henry M. Duque
> > Richard A. Bilas
> >         Commissioner                                     Commissioner
> >
> > September 20, 2001
> >
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate
>and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
>the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
>others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
>authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or
>reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and
>delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto)
>are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or
>evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of
>its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not
>be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or
>otherwise. Thank you.
>**********************************************************************