On hydro, Dennis Benevides told Sue that because the hydro was was not valued 
this year, EES made an additional $80 million.

On DASF Settlement.  This is REALLY rough.  But, our settlement, which was 
filed on Wednesday, is with San Diego.  Considering that we have about 5,000 
accounts in San Diego (20,000 state wide), we could stand to be charged 
upward of about $750,000 additionally annually, based on San Diego's filing.  
This assumes roughly $100 of additional costs per account per year over an 18 
month period.  Our settlement has reduced that charge to nearly nothing.  
Extrapolating to if our proposal were applied to both SCE and PG&E, it would 
be approximately $3 million of avoided costs through the term of agreement 
(12/02).  I would apply a 50% discount factor, therefore value should be 
between $375K and $1.5 million.  






Mona L Petrochko
09/10/2000 05:46 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra 
McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gia 
Maisashvili/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Re: Valuation of GA Activities  

Some additional items:

Pending:

1.  Revenue Allocation Proceeding (Sue Mara, principle)
Determine amount of embedded retail cost will be avoided by direct access 
customers (PX credit).  Judge's decision is $.0007/KWh saying short-run and 
long-run costs are equivalent.  Cmmr. Neeper issued an alternate that 
differentiated long-run from short-run costs and provided $.0034/KWh.  Cmmr. 
Neeper's alternate will be revised, however, likely to be lower.

2.  Revenue Cycle Service/Direct Access Service Fee (Mona Petrochko, 
principle)
Determine the unbundled costs of utility provided meter/bill service on a 
long-run marginal cost basis.  Existing credits are based on short-run 
avoiced costs.  Provided that UDCs could propose fees for providing DA 
service to ESPs or DA customers, including DASR processing, ESP 
administration, rebills, etc.

Awaiting an ALJ Decision on RCS portion of case.  Expect that existing 
credits will increase.
Enron, as part of ARM, filed a settlement w/ SDG&E, ORA, DGS and the Golden 
State Cooperative that eliminated direct charges to ESPs for DASR processing 
and other market facilitation roles that only the UDC can provide and spread 
those costs across all customer classes.  Clarify charges and applicability 
to significantly reduce fees to encourage "better" ESP behavior with regard 
to providing bill data, rebills, etc.  Clarified that "special" services 
requested by ESP from UDC would be provided on a charge basis, with terms 
agreed to in advance.

3.  Continue to monitor Hydro so as to reflect EES interests.

4.  OII SDG&E:  participate in meetings w/ SDG&E to facilitate DA market.  
Advice Letter approving SDG&E's facilitation role adopted which included 
clarification offered by Enron on the obligation to serve for ESPs.  

Working w/ SDG&E in proposing mechanism which will not disadvantage DA 
customer's relative to bundled service in the application of the rate cap.  
Working w/ SDG&E to insure that the voluntary opt-in program for large C&I 
will not disadvantage DA customers.

5.  Implementation of AB 811 (Bruno Gaillard)

AB 811 provided that DA customers of record prior to June 2000 could make a 
one-time election of being billed on a load-profile basis or to be billed 
based on meter reads.  Bruno worked with George Phillips, account managers 
and PR to develop our message to the customer.  The implementation resulted 
in net positive impact to EES' book.