Here you go, for what it's worth.

-----Original Message-----
From: Parquet, David 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:33 PM
To: Mara, Susan
Subject: FW: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report


Here what I promised.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bouse, Earl [mailto:Earl.Bouse@HansonAmerica.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Wallmann, James; Carson, Brad; Dave Parquet (E-mail); Browner,
Victor
Subject: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report


FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: 	William Booth [mailto:wbooth@booth-law.COM] 
Sent:	Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:46 AM
To:	Delaney Hunter (E-mail); Robert P. Houston (E-mail); D. J. Smith
(E-mail)
Cc:	Barbara R. Barkovich (E-mail); Bill Brown (E-mail); Brad Wilkins
(E-mail); Brett Guge (E-mail); Byron McMichael (E-mail); Dan Moreno
(E-mail); Dave Salzborn (E-mail); djsmith@s-k-w.com; Earl F. Bouse Jr.
(E-mail 2); Frank Sheets (E-mail); Gordon Johnson (E-mail); Jim Ellison
(E-mail); Marc Madden (E-mail); Michael Jasberg (E-mail);
PTalluri@CemexUsa.com; Robert P. Houston (E-mail); Rudy Soliman (E-mail);
Satish Sheth (E-mail); Taylor Miller (E-mail); Tom Lynard (E-mail)
Subject:	TURN Amendments re DA

Folks -  I have taken a look at the TURN amendments that Delaney sent me
just now, and I have discussed them with Barbara.  The TURN approach is
totally unacceptable and we should oppose, in our view.  I will also forward
this to the CLECA members for their review.  Here are some of things wrong
witih the TURN approach:
* The suspension of DA is retroactive to July 1, 2001.  
* All of the language we had in subsection (h) regarding treatment of
continuous DA customers has been removed and replaced with a very limited
exemption for plants on the site of the customer.
* Any customer who was a bundled customer for even a day is responsible for
the full panoply of exit fees.
* The DWR forward exit fee is calculated simply as the difference between
the DWR portfolio cost, say 10 cents, and the cost of contracts in the
market at the time of the determination, say 4.5 cents today.  There is no
look at net short.  Each DA customer would be assessed the 5.5 cents in my
example, plus DWR historical and Edison undercollection fees.  A total of
6.5 to 7 cents in my example.  Ts makes DA totally uneconomic.  Further, in
assessing the DWR portfolio cost we are to look at the minimum purchase
levels, thereby raising the per kWh cost due to demand costs.
* Finally, the language adds to the CPUC's rules on coming back to bundled
service, including the provision of notice by the customer before it
returns.  And it adds language authorizing the CPUC to adopt reg's for DA
after the utility takes over the net short purchase obligations from the
DWR.

This is really bad language in my view.  As we discussed yesterday, it makes
DA uneconomic.  I think we should oppose it.
I heard from Derek Naten, SVMG's lobbyist, just now.  He informs that Rick
Simposn and Lawrence Lingbloom say the Edsion undercollection cut point will
move up to 125 kW.  Rick told him that DA is out of the bill entirely.
Lawrence told him that DA will be adressed in a bill under Debra Bowen's
control, and that Debra had a good proposal all along and that the business
guys had screwed it up.  
Are we making progress?  

Bill