Message-ID: <9303149.1075854533532.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:33:00 -0800 (PST) From: david.delainey@enron.com To: john.lavorato@enron.com, greg.whalley@enron.com Subject: Re: PGE's '02 and beyond Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: David W Delainey X-To: John J Lavorato, Greg Whalley X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: Delainey-D X-FileName: ddelain.nsf FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 02/06/2001 07:32 PM --------------------------- Mitchell Taylor@ENRON 02/03/2001 10:22 AM To: David W Delainey@ECT, Cliff Baxter@ECT, mmetts@enron.com cc: Subject: Re: PGE's '02 and beyond Dave, Here is PGE's response to the question you raised about how its plans to cover its short position in '02 and beyond. Part of Pamela's response does not make sense to me and I will follow up with her for additional details. Let me know if you have additional questions. Mitch ---------------------- Forwarded by Mitchell Taylor/Corp/Enron on 02/03/2001 10:17 AM --------------------------- From: Pamela Lesh/ENRON@enronxgate on 02/02/2001 02:00 PM To: Jim Piro/ENRON@enronxgate cc: Mitchell Taylor/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: PGE's '02 and beyond Hi, Mitch! As of today, Oregon is sill moving forward with our version of open access. As you may recall, this is a fairly consevative approach. Only non-residential customers are eligible for direct access. Utilities need not sell any generating resources. We will use a technique called "ongoing valuation" to allow non-residentials to elect other suppliers while still receiving the benefits/paying the costs of our current supplies. We are planning to be in balance (or long) for 2002 on a full load basis. Thus, while non-residential customers may elect new suppliers, they are essentially fully hedged with our portfolio of long- and short-term supplies. We have also begun to raise the question for discussion whether we should fill a full load position for years beyond 2002. Those discussions will probably continue the next couple of months. One possible outcome is that we would fill all of our load except perhaps customers over 1-5 MWs. They would have the right to "opt-out" by giving us notice 1/1/02 not to plan for them beginning 1/1/03. Then, the Commission might phase in this option for consecutively smaller load customers on a set schedule. This would allow us some certainty and ability to make longer-term commitments and also give the market some certainty about what load might be available when. Everyone is well-aware of our short position and the implications of that. We are seeking an amendment to Oregon's restructuring law that would eliminate any date restriction on our ability to treat resource commitments as eligible for transition treatment. I think this is a critical piece to ensuring that Oregon doesn't set up a cliff like California did or Nevada appears to be doing. All this being said, whether Oregon's restructuring moves forward is ultimately an emotional/political issue. Bad news, even if unrelated to direct access, could spook the Legislature enough to give momentum to the several bills already introduced to delay/reverse it. We will keep you informed. Meanwhile, our power supply folks are proceeding as if we will need to plan for almost everyone indefinitely. >>> Jim Piro 01/26/01 02:26PM >>> I think based upon your discussions with staff and the commissioners you are the best one to respond to this question. Thanks >>> 1/26/01 8:49:09 AM >>> Jim, In the resource plan that you sent me earlier this week, you indicated that PGE was short anywhere from 400 to 700 MW, going out to 2006. What sentiment are you hearing in Oregon about open accesss? (In Nevada, where I have been focused of late, the drums are beating louder for longer delays). If open access (customer choice) is deferred beyond this year, how do you plan to cover this short position, especially in '02? Does the OPUC appreciate that you are short in anticipation of open access? Thanks, Mitch