Message-ID: <17068848.1075851010997.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:50:00 -0800 (PST)
From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To: skean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, 
	sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com, 
	john.neslage@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, 
	susan.mara@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, 
	leslie.lawner@enron.com, alan.comnes@enron.com
Subject: Solve IOU Undercollection with a Mere 10% Average Rate Increase?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Jeff Dasovich
X-To: skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro, James D Steffes, Sandra McCubbin, mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne, John Neslage, Harry Kingerski, Susan J Mara, Paul Kaufman, Leslie Lawner, Alan Comnes
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Oct2001_2\Notes Folders\Attachments
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

Greetings:

Please review the attached.  It's a summary I've put together of a very=20
lengthy analysis MRW did for us over the weekend.  I've also attached the=
=20
considerably lengthier MRW memo for those who'd like to see it.  The tables=
=20
included in the summary are pulled directly from the MRW memo.  The analysi=
s=20
only addresses the utilities undercollection (i.e., solvency) and doesn't=
=20
address any additional increases that might result from DWR's buying=20
activities.

The Bottom Line
=06=15 By raising average rates 10% over a 10-year period, California could=
 1)=20
return the utilities to solvency, and 2) help close the  supply-demand gap =
by=20
providing customers with better price signals.
=06=15 California could achieve these goals under this new rate structure a=
nd at=20
the same time exclude one-third of residential  customers from any increase=
s.=20
If California chose not to exclude any customers from the new rate structur=
e,=20
California  would only need to raise average rates by about 8.8%.
=06=15 This level of increase is in line with increases enacted in other st=
ates=20
(e.g., Washington: 28-34%; Montana: 4.5-32%; Idaho:  6.0-24%; Nevada:=20
7-12.5%; New Mexico 12%).

We'll need to look at it critically and try to shoot holes in it before goi=
ng=20
public with the numbers as part of our broader effort, but it offers a=20
reasonable benchmark against which to judge alternatives (like spending the=
=20
kids lunch money on crumbling, broken down transmission systems).

Please provide feedback as soon as possible, and perhaps, Paul we conclude=
=20
the MRW work on the agenda for discussion on tomorrow's daily conference ca=
ll.

Best,
Jeff

 - Undercollection assessment final.doc