Subject: Re: Core/Non-Core - California
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 04:09:00 -0700 (PDT)

Marty - the latest -

2 Direct Access bills (Bowen, Kelly) are still on the table.  Have not 
changed much since my earlier e-mail to you, except that Bowen bill now 
includes a fee to the alternate provider when a customer is "involuntarily 
returned" to the utility.  Language is attached.

 - SB 27xx - mockup.doc

Right now, this legislation is awaiting the outcome of negotiations involving 
SCE and other parties (Jeff Dasovich is our rep).  Speaker Hertzberg and 
Senator Burton both have endorsed these negotiations and promised to support 
agreements the parties reach.   Jeff tells me this morning they are getting 
close to agreement on core/non-core and direct access issues but there are 
still major stumbling blocks,  mostly surrounding the going forward DWR costs 
and contracts, and the issuance of bonds to pay for them.  The bond guys see 
direct access as possible undermining the bonds.  If or once agreement is 
reached, the expectation is that enabling legislation would be crafted that 
would apply California-wide.

The general structure in the SCE discussion is this -
By Jan 1, '03, 500 kW+ customers decide to go to market or stay with utility 
for a long (5 yrs+) period.  Re-entry from market would be with up to 12 
month notice and could require customer to pay spot market price under 
utility default.   20-500 kw customers would have voluntary direct access.  
Under 20 kw customers would have green-only voluntary direct access.   
Recovery for past undercollections is being negotiated, but will likely 
require large customers (20 kw+)  to pay a disproportionate share of the 
costs.

This may be less than definitive, but as usual, the situation is fluid.   
Marty and Jeremy, are you available for a Wednesday morning call with Jeff 
Dasovich? 

Also, just in case you didn't hear, the Commission is scheduled to vote on 
Thursday the 14th on an order that would suspend direct access under the 
AB1x.  The expectation is that the vote will be delayed.  Best information 
says there are not enough votes to approve direct access suspension.

	Marty Sunde@EES
	06/12/2001 09:29 AM
		 
		 To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar 
Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: Core/Non-Core - California

Harry (or anyone else that might know),
Can you help me understand what has gone on in the last week re:

1)  definitive view of exit fees and how they will be administered.  What is 
the probability of one proposed approach vs. others?

2) definitive view of core / non core decisions?  when are they coming?  How 
might they influence our actions with the existing contracts.  Probability of 
one proposal passing  and when?  
---------------------- Forwarded by Marty Sunde/HOU/EES on 06/12/2001 09:13 
AM ---------------------------

David W Delainey
06/11/2001 06:02 PM
To: Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Marcus Dotson/HOU/EES@EES, Marty 
Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Gayle W Muench/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff 
Richter/HOU/ECT, Sean A Holmes/HOU/EES@EES, James M Wood/HOU/EES@EES, Richard 
L Zdunkewicz/HOU/EES@EES, Greg Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, 
Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: Core/Non-Core - California

Guys, I assume that we are managing all new and old California contracts with 
this potential issue in mind.  This plus the exit fees could be a significant 
issue.   Let me know if we need a broader discussion.

Regards
Delainey