Message-ID: <20660527.1075851604394.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: harry.kingerski@enron.com To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, jbennett@gmssr.com, jbennett@gmssr.com Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 01-05-064 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Harry Kingerski X-To: Jeff Dasovich , Susan J Mara , James D Steffes , ,jbennett@gmssr.com@SMTP <,jbennett@gmssr.com@SMTP@enronXgate> X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst -----Original Message----- From: Kingerski, Harry Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:06 PM To: 'JBennett @ENRON'; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail) Subject: RE: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 01-05-064 I think ABAG has a good point and the principle is one we are also trying to establish - if you weren't using DWR power, you shouldn't have to pay for it. But I wonder if Enron's endorsement of ABAG's petition wouldn't contaminate it. I think we should let them win on the merits of their own argument and use their success (if it occurs) as precedent for our position on similar issues. Also, there is some downside if they win. Our customers were on the utility for those 3 months, and are now off - the direct opposite of the situation ABAG is in. So if they escape the burden of the 3 month surcharge, it would (should) be reimposed on customers who were on the utility at that time - which in theory could include our customers, even though they are back on DA and otherwise exempt from the surcharge. So while I think we want them to win, like always, its hard to figure if that's good or bad so let's just stay out. -----Original Message----- From: JBennett @ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:43 AM To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail) Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 01-05-064 Importance: High Attached is a petition for modification of Decision 01-05-064 (the rate design decision) filed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Petition requests that the decision be modified to exempt customers which were direct access for the period of March through May 2001 from the 12 month procurement surcharge which is designed to allow the utilities to collect the three cent increase authorized by the March decision which then did not go into effect until June (i.e., collect the revenues foregone due to the time lag in implementation). Given the fact that most of Enron's customers were on bundled service during the March-June time frame, I do not believe that the requested modification would provide them any benefit. Let me know if I am wrong on this and if Enron wants to chime in in support of ABAG's petition. Jeanne Bennett -----Original Message----- From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:31 PM To: Subject: Re: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 Importance: High Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 filed today by ABAG POWER. Copies have also been sent to all parties on the service list by U.S. Mail. 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 - 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc << File: 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc >>