Message-ID: <5854417.1075851585949.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: tom.riley@enron.com To: d..steffes@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com Subject: FW: Enron DASRs filed since July 1, 2001 Cc: evans@enron.com, mevans32@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, wu@enron.com, awu@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, hurt@enron.com, rhurt@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, frazier@enron.com, lfrazier@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, huddleson@enron.com, dhuddles@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: evans@enron.com, mevans32@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, wu@enron.com, awu@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, hurt@enron.com, rhurt@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, frazier@enron.com, lfrazier@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com, huddleson@enron.com, dhuddles@eeshou.thebentleycompany.com X-From: Riley, Tom X-To: Steffes, James D. , Mara, Susan , Dasovich, Jeff X-cc: Evans,Mark , Wu,Andrew , Hurt,Robert , Frazier,Lamar , Huddleson,Diann X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst Jim, et al, Interesting e-mail from UC. Apparently the PUC is implying to UC that DASRs submitted after July 1 need to be associated with a contract executed prior to July 1. Is this consistent with our intell? Can they make these inquiries? Please advise. Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Maric Munn @ENRON@EES > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:38 PM > To: TRiley@enron.com; dhuddles@enron.com > Cc: mgutheinz@calstate.edu; KTilton > Subject: Fwd: Enron DASRs filed since July 1, 2001 > > Tom, Diann - > > Do you have data on number of DASRs that have been submitted for UC/CSU > accounts post July 1, 2001. DO you also have a breakdown of number of > DASRs that were for accounts that were part of the original group of > accounts that were un-DASRd and re-DASRd vs. the number of DASRs for the > accounts that were being DASR'd for the first time? Read below - > enquiring > minds at the CPUC want to know. > > Thanks > > Maric > > > >X-Sent: 30 Aug 2001 00:13:56 GMT > >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:03:09 -0700 > >From: KTilton > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) > >X-Accept-Language: en,pdf > >To: Maric Munn , Mark Gutheinz > > >CC: Irene Moosen > >Subject: Enron DASRs filed since July 1, 2001 > > > >Maric, Mark: > > > >Our office has received telephone calls from CPUC Energy Division staff > >regarding the Enron DASRs filed since July 1, 2001, and specifically > >whether recent DASRs filed are under an existing contract - that was > >executed prior to July 1 (as opposed to new Direct access contracts, > >post July 1). The Energy Division staff is being asked by their > >superiors to determine how many of the post-July 1 DASRs (for all > >customers, not just UC/CSU) were under an existing contract versus a > >new, post-July 1 contract. As you know, this relates to the revised > >draft decision which suspends direct access effective July 1. > > > >We have explained that the new Enron DASRs for the campuses are under an > >existing contract - the original contract that was executed in 1998. But > >one energy staff member has requested a specific number of post-July 1 > >Enron DASRs filed for the campuses - as they were returned to direct > >access service under the contract. Therefore, I am making this request > >from you. > > > >Can you provide me with the following information: > > 1. How many DASRs have been filed since July 1, 2001 > > 2. Of those, how many were inappropriately removed from direct > >access back in February and how many were eligible, but never placed on > >direct access service due to Enron mistake? > >I will use discretion in sharing the precise breakdown information on > >the post-July 1 DASRs, but it is important that we have a clear > >understanding of the precise numbers. > > > >Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter. I realize > >that you are both busy, and I appreciate your attention to this matter. > > > >thanks > > > >Kelly > >