Subject: Re: core/non-core
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:10:00 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks Robert:
One caution.  It's important that the first-cut analysis be "simple" and 
uses, to the maximum extent possible, the MOU numbers and modeling.  This 
allows us to explain a complex situation to people who aren't necessarily 
"numbers oriented" and to do so with an "apples-to-apples"  comparison.  
That's not to say that we won't be doing scenarios--we will--but it's 
important to have, at the outset, the cleanest, simplest version of "here's 
what core/noncore looks like when we apply your numbers to your model."  That 
said, I understand that even with the simple base case, some tweeks are 
likely.   Talk to you in an hour.  Thanks again for the help.

Best,
Jeff

	Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	05/15/2001 11:24 AM
		 
		 To: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Kortney Brown/Enron@EnronXGate, 
Jeffrey A Soo/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: core/non-core

The CPUC decision on rate design should be used to develop the core rate 
comparison.  That decision has not been issued yet, but it may happen today.  
It would take the form as the schedules that have been previously used, but I 
think we can use a more summarized version of it.

With regard to calculation of the transmission component, I agree that the 
T&D rate for core, if allocated on a system average basis is understated.  
Reviewing some data filed by PG&E in the rate design hearing, I suggest that 
the T&D component be factored up by 1.25.  This is based on the average T&D 
component for PG&E's "core" customers to the average system T&D rate 
component.  Similar information was not available for SCE and San Diego, but 
suggest it could be used as a proxy.

Robert