Catherine/Roger:

Here are some more details forwarded by our outside counsel.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/27/2001 05:44 PM -----

	MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com>
	02/27/2001 05:25 PM
		 
		 To: "'Jeff Dasovich  Enron SF'" <jdasovic@enron.com>
		 cc: "'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'" <smccubbi@enron.com>, "'Sue Mara at Enron 
SF'" <smara@enron.com>
		 Subject: CPUC inquiry re gas customer turnbacks


Jeff:

Here is some more useful information.  Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC spoke to
the woman in person.  The school in question is the Providence High School
in Burbank, California (not Ontario), operated by the Sisters of Providence.
Ms. Kathy Pentalio (sp?) at 818-846-8140 wrote to the CPUC asking about the
school's options after receiving phone and letter notification that their
gas service would be terminated by Enron.  Apparently the Sisters also
operate a hospital which is also served by Enron.  Ms. Pentalio indicated
that she was told that the school would no longer be served on the same
contract as the hospital (claimed to be an attractive 86 cents/th rate)
because the school's load was so small that it was a core customer, while
the hospital was a noncore customer with a larger load.   Neither Ms.
Sarvate nor Ms. Pentalio was clear if the school was served as a core
aggregation customer or as part of the Sisters of Providence noncore
contract.  Ms. Pentalio claimed she spoke with Enron employees Dennis Harris
in Dublin, Ohio as well as Roger Pons in New Mexico.  She indicated that
service would be terminated on June 1, 2001 and she is looking for
alternative sources of gas.

Sarita Sarvate of the CPUC Energy Division would like to understand the
specifics of this case, but her main concern, and the purpose for sending a
letter (if she does send one) is that Dynergy has told her that a number of
small noncore businesses are being returned to the utilities by marketers
because they no longer meet credit requirements.  She assumed that must be
true with Enron as well.  I indicated to her that she should never assume
that we are doing what Dynegy is doing and that we would respond and advise
her if there was any significant trend of noncore customer turnbacks.  The
Commission's concern, which I know you understand, is that it is phasing out
the core subscription schedule (and has a moratorium on switches to the
SoCalGas core subscription schedule) therefore leaving no place for such
customers to go if they cannot contract with a replacement aggregator.

Please advise me of what you discover about this matter and we can talk
further about a response to the CPUC.   Thank you.


Mike Day