Message-ID: <11419997.1075851606954.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: drothrock@cmta.net To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison Bailout Plan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Dorothy Rothrock X-To: Jeff.Dasovich 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 i think you just lucked out for now.....when they hear enron gets out without a scratch they will expand their definition to include you, too. D Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: > glad we're not a generator. > > best, > jeff > > > Dorothy > Rothrock To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com > ta.net> Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison > Bailout Plan > 07/11/2001 > 12:45 PM > > > > worse for SCE and generators, who have to eat the small guy share of the > undercollection > between them. No transmission sale. > > D > > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: > > > better or worse than ours? > > > > > > Dorothy > > Rothrock To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com > > > ta.net> Subject: Re: Sher Shops > Alternative Edison > > Bailout Plan > > 07/11/2001 > > 12:20 PM > > > > > > > > let me know if delaney doesn't send to you... > > > > d > > > > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: > > > > > Thanks. 415.782.7854. Better or worse than ours? > > > > > > > > > Dorothy > > > Rothrock To: > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com > > > > "'Barbara Barkovich > > > ta.net> (E-mail)'" > > , "Dominic > > > DiMare (E-mail)" > > , > > > 07/11/2001 "'John Fielder (E-mail)'" > > , > > > 11:54 AM "'Phil Isenberg (E-mail)'" > > , > > > "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'" > > , > > > "'Keith McCrea (E-mail)'" > > , > > > "'Linda Sherif (E-mail)'" > > , > > > "'Linda Sherif (E-mail 2)'" > > , > > > "'Gary Schoonyan (E-mail)'" > > , > > > "'John White (E-mail)'" > > , > > > dhunter@s-k-w.com, > > Rick.Simpson@asm.ca.gov > > > Subject: Re: Sher Shops > > Alternative Edison > > > Bailout Plan > > > > > > > > > I have the plan.....who wants it? send your fax number (and $10 for > > > shipping > > > and handling....just kidding) > > > > > > D > > > > > > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: > > > > > > > Folks: Please see highlighted sections. Anyone seen Byron's plan? > > Know > > > > where it's headed, etc.? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ************************************************************************* > > > > Power purchase bills exceed $7.5 billion > > > > > > > > Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News > > > > BY MARK GLADSTONE, NOAM LEVEY AND DION NISSENBAUM > > > > > > > > Mercury News Sacramento Bureau > > > > > > > > SACRAMENTO -- Six months after jumping into the electricity business, > > the > > > > Davis administration on Monday provided the first detailed glimpse of > > > > California's daily power purchases, showing more than $5 billion in > > > > payments, much of it to government-owned utilities and private > > companies > > > > that state officials have branded as price gougers. > > > > > > > > The state spent an additional $2.5 billion on a variety of contracts > > and > > > > other electricity services designed to stabilize the volatile energy > > > > markets, according to documents that the state agreed to release last > > > week > > > > amid a legal dispute over public access to the data. > > > > > > > > In roughly the first five months of the year, the state shelled out > > $1.2 > > > > billion to Atlanta-based Mirant, the most any company was paid for > > > > electricity, followed by $1 billion to Powerex, the marketing arm of > BC > > > > Hydro in British Columbia. It also paid $331 million to the Los > Angeles > > > > Department of Water and Power. > > > > > > > > The documents raise questions about some of the common assumptions > that > > > > have arisen around the electricity crisis. For instance, almost 40 > > > percent > > > > of the state's purchases have come from government-run power > generators > > > in > > > > California and elsewhere, but not Texas; some of the biggest > suppliers > > > are > > > > from the Northwest. > > > > > > > > Gov. Gray Davis, who has ambitions to run for the White House, has > put > > > much > > > > of the blame for the soaring costs of power on energy companies based > > in > > > > President Bush's home state. > > > > > > > > The figures are tucked inside 1,770 of pages of invoices that Davis > has > > > > resisted divulging, saying disclosure would encourage suppliers to > > charge > > > > more. The state, which last month released information on its > long-term > > > > electricity contracts worth $43 billion, agreed Thursday to release > the > > > > first quarter details. > > > > > > > > Short on explanation > > > > > > > > The figures were disclosed late Monday by the California Department > of > > > > Water Resources, which buys power for the state's financially > strapped > > > > major utilities, and seem to buttress the administration's contention > > > that > > > > the price of power is gradually dropping but offer little or no > > > explanation > > > > for what prompted the decrease. > > > > > > > > In January, for instance, the average price for power on the spot > > market > > > > was $321 a megawatt hour. It peaked in April at $332 and dropped to > > $271 > > > in > > > > May. > > > > > > > > One megawatt powers about 750 homes. > > > > > > > > Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said the price data supports the > > > governor's > > > > assertions that California has been gouged. ``The bad guys are > clearly > > > the > > > > out-of-state generators,'' Maviglio said. ``There has been a > > significant > > > > shift of money out of California.'' > > > > > > > > But the documents fail to shed much light on whether, as the > > > administration > > > > contends, the price drop was due to long-term power contracts > > negotiated > > > by > > > > the state earlier this year. Critics contend that the Davis > > > administration > > > > panicked and rushed into deals that commit the state to pay high > prices > > > for > > > > many years. > > > > > > > > Used for support > > > > > > > > Republican officials used the price information to bolster their > > attacks > > > > against Davis, a Democrat, for signing long-term contracts with power > > > > generators even as the price of power on the spot market was coming > > down, > > > > partly because of the declining price of natural gas used to fuel > many > > > > plants. > > > > > > > > ``It's more clear than ever that the long-term contracts are a bad > > > deal,'' > > > > said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Camarillo. ``The governor's > really > > > hurt > > > > the ratepayers for the next five or 10 years.'' > > > > > > > > The newly released bills highlight the volatility of California's > > energy > > > > market, where the price per megawatt hour ranged from $70 to $1,000. > On > > > any > > > > given day, the records show, the prices from seller to seller varied > > > > widely, with some of the highest prices being charged by public > > utilities > > > > and companies outside Texas. > > > > > > > > On one day in February, for example, San Diego-based Sempra Energy > was > > > > charging $165 per megawatt hour, the Eugene Water and Electric Board > > was > > > > charging nearly $500 and Duke Energy, a North Carolina company, was > > > > charging up to $575. > > > > > > > > The state's daily spending peaked May 10 at $102.4 million for all > > power, > > > > including the spot market and contracted power. > > > > > > > > The state began buying power in mid-January on behalf of the state's > > > major > > > > utilities, which were unable to borrow money to buy power after > > amassing > > > > enormous debts for electricity. > > > > > > > > San Jose-based Calpine Corp., which is building several new power > > plants > > > > around California including one in South San Jose, did only $29 > million > > > > worth of business with the state in the first five months of the > year, > > > > according to the figures. > > > > > > > > The state began buying power in mid-January when Pacific Gas & > Electric > > > Co. > > > > and Southern California Edison Co. were on the ropes financially. > PG&E > > > > later went into bankruptcy. > > > > > > > > On Monday, state lawmakers took another shot at trying to cobble > > together > > > a > > > > plan to rescue financially ailing Edison. > > > > > > > > While most concede that a rescue plan Davis worked out with Edison > will > > > not > > > > win the necessary support in the Legislature, lawmakers have created > > > > several working groups to come up with alternatives. > > > > > > > > Compromise plan > > > > > > > > On Monday, state Sen. Byron Sher, D-Redwood City, unveiled the latest > > > > compromise proposal that seeks to protect average ratepayers and > small > > > > businesses from further rate increases and forces everyone else to > help > > > > finance the Edison bailout. > > > > > > > > The ``shared pain'' proposal would force power producers, owed about > $1 > > > > billion, to take a 30 percent ``haircut'' and agree to forgive about > > $300 > > > > million in Edison debts. Edison would be asked to swallow $1.2 > billion > > -- > > > > about a third of its debt. And big users would be asked to pay off > the > > > > remaining $2 billion in debts, possibly by paying higher prices for > > > power. > > > > > > > > In exchange, large companies would be given the opportunity to buy > > power > > > on > > > > the open market, a system that would allow many of them to sign cheap > > > > energy deals. > > > > > > > > Sher presented the proposal to Senate Democrats Monday afternoon, but > > it > > > > remains unclear how much support the framework will receive in the > > > > Legislature. > > > > > > > > Contact Mark Gladstone at mgladstone@sjmercury.com or (916) 325-4314.