Good points, Chris, and well taken.  

The PUC Commisisoners took some heat for their heavy-handed approach at 
hearings held by Congress on Monday and FERC on Tuesday.  I think those 
hearings may have loosened things the Commission up at least somewhat, though 
finding a balance between Commission willingness to grant pre-approval and 
utility willingness to wear some risk in exchange won't be a cakewalk. 

We need to remind the Commission that they gave 100 % pre-approved 
reasonableness for purchases from the PX, and that pre-approval for other 
purchases is necessary.  That said, I concur that it ain't a gimmee.

Best,
Jeff


To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal  

Jeff:

 Re: you comment below that "...they'll be subject to a considerable amount 
of pressure to pre-approve if a deal is offered that can be show to shield 
San Diegans from volatility and that looks"attractive."   The CPUC did not 
pre-approve either SDG&E or SCE recent attempts to buy forward.   I don't 
think they ever will give pre-granted reasonableness review for purchases.  
That is why boith utilites decided not to execute as part of their recent 
RFPs.  PG&E RFP is up next...I expect more of the same.

Chris



Jeff Dasovich@EES
09/14/2000 08:54 AM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal  

Thanks for the update.  Just want to add that 1) if we're uneasy about 
wearing the full requirements risk, then focusing on offering a purely 
wholesale deal can still be very attractive, given SDG&E's blunders w.r.t. 
procurment wholesale power on behalf of its customers.  And 2) the CPUC has 
been beat up pretty well for tying the IOUs hands in attempting to hedge, so 
they'll be subject to a considerable amount of pressure to pre-approve if a 
deal is offered that can be show to shield San Diegans from volatility and 
that looks"attractive." 

Appreciate being kept in the loop on the details.  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff


To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES 
Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal  

J

I think we could get below $60 on a 5 year deal with a bell shaped load 
profile at SP-15.  I do not think we can get there for the SDG&E zone.  In 
fact, I don't think Tim will want to sell the SDG&E zone at all.  If we offer 
it, it will be at a significant premium to SP-15.  

We just showed SCE $58 for a 5 year peak (By the way, like the SDG&E RFP, the 
SCE RFP resulted in no transactions because they did not get pre-approved 
reasonableness review and they were too chicken to do it at shareholder 
risk.  The PG&E RFP for essentially the same deal structure is due tomorrow 
and we will be responding.  With the PG&E RFP, prices can be changed oon 
October 11 so  the prices we will show them now are indicative only).

Get me that load profile data and I will put together a deal structure.    I 
wil also be working with the traders to address this "new zone" issue as it 
exists for all three utilities, not just SDG&E.

C



James D Steffes@EES
09/12/2000 07:39 AM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: thane twiggs 
Subject: SDG&E Requirements Deal  

Chris --

I agree with you on the difficulty of a "true" full requirements deal.  I 
assume what you are talking about is some pre-agreed to 100% load factor 
energy delivery that could be different for each hour during the year (a sort 
of "load profile solution").  SDG&E would be responsible for +/- around this 
delivery?  Maybe offer SDG&E an option on wide variations.

The other key issue I guess that is important is transmission congestion 
risk.  Would EPMI be willing to agree to deliver the energy into the SDG&E 
load zone or just to SP15?  It is my understanding that there is a 
significant economic difference the SP15 and specific load zones?  Am I 
correct in my thinking?

We probably need to beat $60/Mwh and leave $5/Mwh for the load following.  We 
may need to go even lower (if possible) to give SDG&E room to recover this 
summer's high cost of power with the retroactive retail ratemaking back 
through July 1, 2000.

On your issue of CPUC approval, that is exactly the play.  We need to walk 
into the CPUC with an offer that it can't pass up (with or without SDG&E).

I've asked Thane Twiggs to get you the appropriate 8760 load profile for 
SDG&E residential customers.  While the rate deal was broader, we could just 
supply this customer group.

I'll call when we have the information.

Jim



To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay

Jim:

A couple thoughts...

I don't think Tim would be interested in a true "Full Requirements" deal that 
would put us at risk for actual load.  If we could define "Full Requirements" 
as a load profile that has been set ahead of time, and have SDG&E be at risk 
for deviations from that profile, then I think we would be interested.  With 
this structure, we could offer a fixed price equal to the weighted average 
price of their load profile.  If that fixed price was lower than the SDG&E 
embedded generation cost in rates we might have an angle. "Winning" such a 
deal still seems like a pretty low probability event, given SDG&E's desire to 
RFP everything.  However, SDG&E's (and SCE's) main objective seems to be 
pre-approved reasonableness review.  Since they can't make money on 
commodity, at least they don't want to lose money.  Maybe we could get the 
approval of the CPUC? SDG&E wouldn't mind buying from us if this is what it 
took to get pre-approved reasonableness review.  

If someone could get me that load profile information, I would be willing to 
price it up. 

Let me know what you think.

C 
---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 09/11/2000 
01:09 PM ---------------------------


James D Steffes@EES
09/11/2000 01:12 PM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David 
Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, 
Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: Re: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay  

Chris --

Given this development, now may be the right time for Enron to come in and 
make a "public" offer to SDG&E.  We may be able to put some pressure on the 
CPUC to approve a full requirements offer that works with the legislative 
rate cap.

I'll be in contact with you to discuss.

Jim




To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim 
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay

Surprise, surprise.  

SDG&E is afraid to do anything without the pre-approved reasonableness from 
the CPUC which I don't think will be obtained.

Chris

Chris
---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 09/11/2000 
05:59 AM ---------------------------
   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  "Firooz, Sharon" <SFirooz@SDGE.com>                           
09/08/2000 05:32 PM
	

To: "Hart, Dana" <DHart@SDGE.com>, "'agalatic@internetconnect.net'" 
<agalatic@internetconnect.net>, "'al_figueroa@vflet.com'" 
<al_figueroa@vflet.com>, "'bbowman@coral-energy.com'" 
<bbowman@coral-energy.com>, "'biggsbg@bp.com'" <biggsbg@bp.com>, 
"'bob_anderson@apses.com'" <bob_anderson@apses.com>, 
"'ccantor@sempratrading.com'" <ccantor@sempratrading.com>, 
"'cfoster@enron.com'" <cfoster@enron.com>, "'david_metz@apsc.com'" 
<david_metz@apsc.com>, "'dcazalet@apx.com'" <dcazalet@apx.com>, 
"'dgordon@exchange.ml.com'" <dgordon@exchange.ml.com>, 
"'dirk.andreas@nrgenergy.com'" <dirk.andreas@nrgenergy.com>, 
"'dparque@ect.enron.com'" <dparque@ect.enron.com>, 
"'dpenney@coral-energy.com'" <dpenney@coral-energy.com>, 
"'emaddox@seawestwindpower.com'" <emaddox@seawestwindpower.com>, 
"'gkosier@newenergy.com'" <gkosier@newenergy.com>, "'gluna@sempra-slns.com'" 
<gluna@sempra-slns.com>, "'greg.kelly@gen.pge.com'" <greg.kelly@gen.pge.com>, 
"'hreed@powersrc.com'" <hreed@powersrc.com>, 
"'jackmcnamara.geothermal@att.net'" <jackmcnamara.geothermal@att.net>, 
"'james.north@msdw.com'" <james.north@msdw.com>, 
"'jay.alexander@southernenergy.com'" <jay.alexander@southernenergy.com>, 
"'jdcoggin@srpnet.com'" <jdcoggin@srpnet.com>, "'jim_staggs@apses.com'" 
<jim_staggs@apses.com>, "'jivey@utilicorp.com'" <jivey@utilicorp.com>, 
"'john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com'" <john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>, 
"'jon.fischer@pacificorp.com'" <jon.fischer@pacificorp.com>, 
"'jpmarchand@aep.com'" <jpmarchand@aep.com>, 
"'Kristen_L_Sullivan@reliantenergy.com'" 
<Kristen_L_Sullivan@reliantenergy.com>, "'lbryant@pnm.com'" 
<lbryant@pnm.com>, "'leah.bissonette@williams.com'" 
<leah.bissonette@williams.com>, "'Lhamilton@avistaenergy.com'" 
<Lhamilton@avistaenergy.com>, "'marvin_k_ballard@reliantenergy.com'" 
<marvin_k_ballard@reliantenergy.com>, "'medwar@ladwp.com'" 
<medwar@ladwp.com>, "'njwa@dynegy.com'" <njwa@dynegy.com>, 
"'peterc@calpine.com'" <peterc@calpine.com>, "'priced@epenergy.com'" 
<priced@epenergy.com>, "'pscarpelli@retx.com'" <pscarpelli@retx.com>, 
"'rproush@duke-energy.com'" <rproush@duke-energy.com>, "'rshimizu@mieco.com'" 
<rshimizu@mieco.com>, "'sbvanleer@duke-energy.com'" 
<sbvanleer@duke-energy.com>, "'shapp@caiso.com'" <shapp@caiso.com>, 
"'stacey.kusters@powerex.com'" <stacey.kusters@powerex.com>, 
"'szablyal@epenergy.com'" <szablyal@epenergy.com>, 
"'tmcandrew@statoilenergy.com'" <tmcandrew@statoilenergy.com>
cc:  
Subject: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay


SDG&E would like to inform you that  we did not gain authority from the
commission on 9/7 and cannot enter into bilateral trades at present; (2) we
anticipate receiving that approval on September 21; we will solicit new
proposals between now and then and look forward to your continuing
participation, as well as your assistance in gaining the necessary
regulatory approvals.  Thanks