Subject: ABAG Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:02:00 -0700 (PDT)

What is your thought on this.  Since we've taken our customers back, this could be dangerous -- but it has already been filed.  Can you see any way it moght help?  I think we have 30 days to respond.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/30/2001 11:01 AM -----

	"Dan Douglass" <[email-masked]> 07/16/2001 05:59 PM 	   To: "ARM" <[email-masked]>, "Bob Anderson" <[email-masked]>, "Vicki Sandler" <[email-masked]>, "Merilyn Ferrara" <[email-masked]>, "Janie Mollon" <[email-masked]>, "Kenneth Moy" <[email-masked]>, "Jerry Lahr" <[email-masked]>, "Dave Finigan" <[email-masked]>, "Sue Mara" <[email-masked]>, "Steve Huhman" <[email-masked]>, "Roger Pelote" <[email-masked]>, "Rob Nichol" <[email-masked]>, "Randy Hickok" <[email-masked]>, "Nam Nguyen" <[email-masked]>, "Joe Paul" <[email-masked]>, "Jeff Dasovich" <[email-masked]>, "Jack Pigott" <[email-masked]>, "Greg Blue" <[email-masked]>, "George Vaughn" <[email-masked]>, "Gary Ackerman" <[email-masked]>, "Curtis Kebler" <[email-masked]>, "Curt Hatton" <[email-masked]>, "Corby Gardiner" <[email-masked]>, "Charles Miessner" <[email-masked]>, "Carolyn Baker" <[email-masked]>, "Bob Anderson" <[email-masked]>, "Bill Ross" <[email-masked]>, "Ed Cazalet" <[email-masked]>, "Denice Cazalet Purdum" <[email-masked]>, "Robert Berry" <[email-masked]>, "Tamara Johnson" <[email-masked]>, "Max Bulk" <[email-masked]>  cc:   Subject: ABAG Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064	

Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of  D.01-05-064 which ABAG POWER filed on July 13.  On behalf of ABAG, I would  like to solicit your support of this petition.  The decision in question is  the Commission's May 15 decision where it approved the rate design for the  three-cent rate increase.  
 
You may recall that the decision approved a 12-month surcharge for all  bundled service customers to make up for the revenue which PG&E and SCE did  not recover during the interim period between the March 27 issuance of  D.01-03-082 and the subsequent issuance of the May 15 decision.  You also  know that the May decision provided specifically that DA customers were NOT to  be subject to the rate increase. 
 
The ABAG petition for modification seeks to have the Commission clarify  that DA customers who received DA service during the interim period between the  two decisions should not be subject to the one-year sucharge, even if they were  subsequently returned to bundled service.  The arguments supporting this  position are as follows:

Direct  access customers were specifically exempted from the procurement-related rate  increase because they do not receive procurement service.  They should therefore be similarly  exempted from the12-month procurement surcharge, even if they subsequently  returned to bundled service.   
The inability of PG&E to pay all amounts  due and owing under the PX credit have caused the budgets of ABAG POWER  Members to be placed under significant financial stress.  The Member public agencies have  suffered extreme financial hardship.   The application of the 12-month procurement surcharge has added to that  burden unnecessarily.
In a separate  proceeding (draft Resolution E-3726),  the Commission has expressed  its intent to "guard against inequities" for direct access customers of  SDG&E.  ABAG POWER asks simply  that the Commission afford similar protection to the direct access customers  of PG&E who did not receive bundled procurement service during the  interval between the March and May Decisions.  
Moreover, in addition  to being inequitable, the application of the procurement surcharge to  non-procurement direct access customers would be discriminatory and would  cause the utilities to violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the  Public Utilities Code, Sections 453(a) and 453(c).

ABAG POWER  would very much appreciate the support of ESPs and other market participants at  the Commission.  Under Rule 47(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and  Procedure, "Responses to petitions for modification must be filed and served  within 30 days of the date that the petition was served, unless the  administrative law judge sets a different date. Responses must be served on the  petitioner and on all  parties who were served with the petition and must  comply with the requirements of Rules 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5."  Filings  sooner than that would be appreciated.  Please give me a call or email if  you are willing to file in support of the ABAG petition.  Thanks very  much for your consideration of our request.
 
Dan

Law  Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  Suite  244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:   (818) 596-2201
Fax:   (818) 346-6502
[email-masked] 
 - 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc