Message-ID: <6300364.1075851599799.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: susan.mara@enron.com To: michael.tribolet@enron.com, lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com Subject: Workshop on DWR Revenue Requirement --July 27, 2001 Cc: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com X-From: Susan J Mara X-To: Michael Tribolet , Lisa Mellencamp , Harry Kingerski , James D Steffes X-cc: Jeff Dasovich , Paul Kaufman X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst Harry, Please forward to anyone else who needs to see this. Sue Mara Enron Corp. Tel: (415) 782-7802 Fax:(415) 782-7854 ----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/30/2001 02:11 PM ----- JBennett 07/30/2001 02:07 PM To: "Sue Mara (E-mail)" cc: Subject: Workshop on DWR Revenue Requirement --Please Forward to Applicabl e Enron Individuals The workshop conducted by the Energy Division on Friday on the DWR revenue requirement submitted to the Commission on July 23rd was basically a question and answer session. A representative of DWR was present as were several representatives of the consulting firm Navigant which assisted DWR in constructing its revenue requirement request. The representatives of Navigant fielded most of the questions. Not much new information was garnered. A little more clarity was shed on certain areas. Of interest to Enron would be that in determining the net short for each of the UDCs for which DWR was purchasing it assumed no change in the current direct access levels (which is approximately 2% of the load in the state) through 2002. Other points of clarification included: (1) A question exists with respect to whether DWR is responsible for the ISO costs billed to the UDCs for the period of January through June of 2001. (2) Any payments which were made to DWR to date by the UDCs would be netted against the revenue requirements requests for the first and second quarter of this year. PG&E indicated that DWR's numbers for the revenue received from PG&E to date do not match its own accounting. (3) The net short calculation for each UDC was derived by using the net short forecasts provided by each of the UDCs an modifying them to take into account (1) a 4% reduction in load due to conservation efforts; (2) a 2% reduction in load due to price elasticity increasing to 3% by January 2001; (3) estimated impacts of the 20/20 program (assuming also a similar program for next summer); (4) the impact of the UDCs curtailment programs. Once again, PG&E indicated its belief that DWR's net short projection for PG&E was erroneous. (4) DWR explained that the basis for the projection that they would need 1.65 cents out of the three cents rate increase was that for sales made by DWR they already receive the UDC generation rate (i.e., approximately 6.8 cent for PG&E and 7.2 cent for SCE). On top of that, they need the 1.65 cents. SCE submitted four pages of written questions to DWR on their revenue request. DWR is to respond in writing (and serve on all people on the service list ) by Tuesday the 31st. To the extent that the questions are applicable to PG&E, they will answer the question with respect to both UDCs. Please call if you have any questions. Jeanne Bennett