Subject: Re: PX-Based SRAC Payments to QFs
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:15:00 -0800 (PST)

The haircut notion, I believe, arises from Edison's claim that the PX price 
includes a capacity payment, particularly when demand (i.e., the price) is 
higher.  I think there's discussion of it in the proposed decision that came 
out some time ago and which sits in "hold" limbo on the Commission's agenda.  
I've attached it.  Alan could you see if it's included in the decision?  If 
not, I can poke around more.  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff

	Alan Comnes@ECT
	12/18/2000 03:59 PM
		 
		 To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
		 cc: 
		 Subject: PX-Based SRAC Payments to QFs

Jeff, Paul,

I talked to Mike Etringer and found out that the reason why he wanted to talk 
to Jeff is Mike's recollection of a conversation with Jeff that a SRAC 
"haIrcut" in the 5-10% range had been suggested based on the total amount of 
load in California about 39,000 to 40,000 MW.

Jeff, is there anything we can point Mike to to better understand this basis 
of a capacity adjustment?

In our call with Doug Kerner last week, the best guess, summed up by Calger, 
was that SRAC would go PX based beginning in '03 with  a capacity clipping of 
20% (half way between SCE o 40% and IEP of 0%).  However, I think Mike is 
struggling to justify a smaller haircut.  Thus, the follow up call to Jeff.

Alan Comnes