Subject: Workshop on DWR Revenue Requirement --July 27, 2001
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:13:00 -0700 (PDT)

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 <[email-masked]> 07/30/2001 02:07 PM 	   To: "Sue Mara (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>  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