Message-ID: <30524905.1075851600221.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.mara@enron.com
To: harry.kingerski@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com
Subject: ABAG Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064
Cc: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
X-From: Susan J Mara <Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON>
X-To: Harry Kingerski <Harry Kingerski/Enron@EnronXGate>, James D Steffes <James D Steffes/Enron@EnronXGate>
X-cc: Jeff Dasovich <Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst

What is your thought on this.  Since we've taken our customers back, this c=
ould 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 -----


=09"Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com> 07/16/2001 05:59 PM =09   T=
o: "ARM" <arem@electric.com>, "Bob Anderson" <Robert_Anderson@apses.com>, "=
Vicki Sandler" <vicki_sandler@apses.com>, "Merilyn Ferrara" <merilyn_ferrar=
a@apses.com>, "Janie Mollon" <jsmollon@newwestenergy.com>, "Kenneth Moy" <K=
ennethm@abag.ca.gov>, "Jerry Lahr" <jerryl@abag.ca.gov>, "Dave Finigan" <da=
vef@abag.ca.gov>, "Sue Mara" <susan_j_mara@enron.com>, "Steve Huhman" <stev=
e.huhman@mirant.com>, "Roger Pelote" <roger.pelote@williams.com>, "Rob Nich=
ol" <rsnichol@newwestenergy.com>, "Randy Hickok" <rjhickok@duke-energy.com>=
, "Nam Nguyen" <nam.nguyen@powersrc.com>, "Joe Paul" <jmpa@dynegy.com>, "Je=
ff Dasovich" <jeff.dasovich@enron.com>, "Jack Pigott" <jackp@calpine.com>, =
"Greg Blue" <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "George Vaughn" <gavaughn@duke-energy.com>, =
"Gary Ackerman" <foothillservices@mindspring.com>, "Curtis Kebler" <curtis_=
l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Curt Hatton" <curt.hatton@neg.pge.com>, "Corb=
y Gardiner" <jcgardin@newwestenergy.com>, "Charles Miessner" <camiessn@neww=
estenergy.com>, "Carolyn Baker" <cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Bob Anderson" <=
Bob_Anderson@apses.com>, "Bill Ross" <billr@calpine.com>, "Ed Cazalet" <ed@=
cazalet.com>, "Denice Cazalet Purdum" <dpurdum@apx.com>, "Robert Berry" <be=
rry@apx.com>, "Tamara Johnson" <tjohnso8@enron.com>, "Max Bulk" <mbulk@apx.=
com>  cc:   Subject: ABAG Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064=09




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 woul=
d  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. =20
=20
You may recall that the decision approved a 12-month surcharge for all  bun=
dled service customers to make up for the revenue which PG&E and SCE did  n=
ot 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.=20
=20
The ABAG petition for modification seeks to have the Commission clarify  th=
at DA customers who received DA service during the interim period between t=
he  two decisions should not be subject to the one-year sucharge, even if t=
hey were  subsequently returned to bundled service.  The arguments supporti=
ng this  position are as follows:

Direct  access customers were specifically exempted from the procurement-re=
lated rate  increase because they do not receive procurement service.  They=
 should therefore be similarly  exempted from the12-month procurement surch=
arge, even if they subsequently  returned to bundled service.  =20
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 signific=
ant financial stress.  The Member public agencies have  suffered extreme fi=
nancial hardship.   The application of the 12-month procurement surcharge h=
as added to that  burden unnecessarily.
In a separate  proceeding (draft Resolution E-3726),  the Commission has ex=
pressed  its intent to "guard against inequities" for direct access custome=
rs of  SDG&E.  ABAG POWER asks simply  that the Commission afford similar p=
rotection to the direct access customers  of PG&E who did not receive bundl=
ed procurement service during the  interval between the March and May Decis=
ions. =20
Moreover, in addition  to being inequitable, the application of the procure=
ment surcharge to  non-procurement direct access customers would be discrim=
inatory and would  cause the utilities to violate the anti-discrimination p=
rovisions 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 Rul=
es of Practice and  Procedure, "Responses to petitions for modification mus=
t be filed and served  within 30 days of the date that the petition was ser=
ved, 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 peti=
tion.  Thanks very  much for your consideration of our request.
=20
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
douglass@energyattorney.com=20
 - 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc