World Watch
The Wall Street Journal, 10/01/01
INDIA: Panel suggests Indian govt pay in Enron row-paper.
Reuters English News Service, 10/01/01
INDIA: Tata Power said in talks to buy India Enron stake.
Reuters English News Service, 10/01/01
Greece Awards 4 Electricity Production, 8 Supply Permits
Dow Jones International News, 10/01/01
Cong, NCP differ over Enron probe panel issue
The Times of India, 10/01/01
Calif. utility closer to bankruptcy
The Star-Ledger Newark, NJ, 09/30/01
RULING SLOWS EFFORTS TO AID THOSE BESET WITH HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS
Portland Oregonian, 09/30/01
Calif Pwr Generators Demand Repayment, Threaten Lawsuit
Dow Jones Energy Service, 09/29/01
REGULATORS WILL NOT DELAY PGE INCREASE
Portland Oregonian, 09/29/01
Firms Push Edison Near Bankruptcy Energy: Power generators ask firm to spell out how they will be repaid hundreds of millions of dollars for purchases under deregulation plan.
Los Angeles Times, 09/29/01



International
World Watch
Compiled by Lily H. Li

10/01/2001
The Wall Street Journal
A12
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Azurix Abandons Argentine Concession 
Azurix, a unit of Houston-based Enron, has decided to abandon its $440 million, 30-year concession to operate drinking- and waste-water services in Buenos Aires province and is trying to recover all investments made there in the past 26 months, a company spokesman said. In addition, Enron and Azurix will seek "some level of damages in addition to the money we've spent," said John Ambler, Enron's spokesman for its Latin American operations. On Sept. 19, the company filed a claim with the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Switzerland against the Republic of Argentina to make sure "that all of our rights are protected," he said. 

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

INDIA: Panel suggests Indian govt pay in Enron row-paper.

10/01/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, Oct 1 (Reuters) - An Indian panel has suggested the federal government be willing to spend almost 57 billion rupees ($1.19 billion) to help resurrect the Enron Corp Dabhol power project, which stopped producing electricity more than three months ago, a business daily said on Monday. 
The panel was constituted in early 2001 to review all aspects of the controversial power project, set up at a cost of $2.9 billion on the west coast of India.
The Business Standard daily said the panel's report had suggested Dabhol's various stakeholders all be willing to absorb the costs that would have to be incurred to revive the 2,184 MW gas-based project. 
Dabhol Power Company is 65 percent owned by Enron Corp . GE and Bechtel own 10 percent each, while the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, a local state-owned power utility, owns the remaining 15 percent. 
The western state of Maharashtra is a guarantor to the Dabhol project and the federal government is its counter-guarantor. 
U.S.-based Enron has said it wants to exit the project after a bitter dispute with the local utility, which had initially contracted to purchase all the power from Dabhol Power Company's plant. 
It subsequently defaulted on payments, saying it didn't need that much power, which it claimed was too expensive in any case. Enron claimed the utility was reneging on its contractual obligations. 
Dabhol finally took the utility to the International Court of Arbitration in London, warning India faces liabilities worth $5 billion. 
But Enron has simultaneously said it is willing to settle out of court if it can recover its costs. 
While there have been many suggestions, the panel's report is among the few to provide a detailed solution, including the liability each party would have to shoulder. 
A SOLUTION 
The panel was set up by the Maharashtra government. Its main brief was to suggest ways of reworking the power purchase agreement so as to reduce Dabhol's tariff. After the dispute worsened, the panel was also asked to suggest revival measures. 
The panel proposed that if all the stakeholders were willing to absorb the specified losses, the tariff on Dabhol's power could be reduced to between 2.25 and 2.4 rupees per kilowatt-hour from 3.65 to 3.91 rupees at 90 percent capacity utilisation, the newspaper reported. 
According to the panel's report, the federal government's liability of 56.63 billion rupees included an infusion of 25 billion in cash, waiving customs duties on the import of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and cutting import duties on capital goods, the report said. 
It said the panel has also suggested Enron, GE and Bechtel together absorb a loss of 28.35 billion rupees on their investment in the project. ($1=47.93 rupees).

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	


INDIA: Tata Power said in talks to buy India Enron stake.

10/01/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, Oct 1 (Reuters) - India's largest private utility, Tata Power Company, is in preliminary talks with Enron Corp to buy the U.S. giant's stake in the troubled $2.9 billion Dabhol Power unit, Indian media reported. 
The Economic Times said in a weekend report that Tata Power , a unit of India's second-largest conglomerate, would start final negotiations with Enron after the consultants it had appointed to value the project submitted a report.
It said JM Financial and Ernst & Young had been appointed to carry out a due diligence exercise. 
The paper quoted Tata Power Managing Director Adi Engineer as saying his company would "demand Enron scale down the (selling) price" to make it viable to buy the stake. 
Engineer was not immediately available for comment. 
The Financial Express said in an unsourced report on Saturday that Tata Power and Enron were close to an agreement on the stake deal. 
Indian financial institutions and banks, which have lent around $1.4 billion to the project, are coordinating efforts to find a buyer for Enron's stake. 
"Our search for a viable partner is on," a source from a domestic lender told Reuters. 
He said Tata Power officials met P.P.Vora, chairman of state-run Industrial Development Bank of India - the biggest lender to the project - and Enron officials last Thursday to start negotiations. 
Enron has a 65 percent stake in the embattled project, Indian state utility Maharashtra State Electricity Board owns 15 percent and General Electric Co and Bechtel Corp. each own 10 percent. 
Dabhol has faced problems ever since it was forced to shut its 740 MW plant on the west coast of India in June after its sole customer, a local state utility, stopped buying power. 
It had also defaulted on earlier payments. 
The shutdown has stalled an expansion programme, which was almost complete, that would have raised the capacity to 2,184 MW. 
Tata Power shares were down 1.5 percent at 98.80 rupees while the Bombay benchmark index was down 0.65 percent in morning trade.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	


Greece Awards 4 Electricity Production, 8 Supply Permits

10/01/2001
Dow Jones International News
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

ATHENS -(Dow Jones)- Greece has awarded four electricity transmission unit licenses totaling 1,100 megawatts and eight electricity production permits totaling 954 MW, the country's development ministry said late Friday. 
The four groups to operate electricity transmission units are U.S. Enron Corp. (ENE) for capacity of 350 MW, Italy's Enel SpA (EN) for 250 MW, Switzerland's Atel for 300 MW and U.S. Cinergy Corp. (CIN) for 200 MW.
The companies awarded electricity production permits were both local consortia and foreign companies. 
Greece's Michaniki (I.MCH) and Aegek each received permits for 93 MW production capacity. 
Kavala CCGT, a consortium made up of France's Electricite de France (F.EDF) and Hellenic Energy and Development, was awarded a 440 MW production capacity permit. 
Cinergy Global Trading Ltd. received a 80 MW permit and a 50 MW permit while Aluminium of Greece (I.ALG), the Greek subsidiary of France's Pechiney SA (PY), received three permits, each for a capacity of 66 MW. 
-By Paul Tugwell, Dow Jones Newswires; 301 3312 881; paul.tugwell@dowjones.com

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

Cong, NCP differ over Enron probe panel issue
Prakash Joshi

10/01/2001
The Times of India
Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM)

MUMBAI: The delicate relationship between the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party has been stretched to a breaking point following differences over the appointment of a retired Supreme Court judge to head the panel to probe into the Enron issue. 
According to sources, the state government has completed necessary paper work after the state cabinet decided in principle to go for a judicial commission.
The NCP leadership is upset about the speed with which the commission is being constituted by the state administration. The NCP wanted to go slow with the idea. 
On Friday, chief minister Deshmukh held a closed door meeting to decide on two issues whether to defer the constitution of the judicial panel and the NCP criticism on the chana dal and other issues aired after the Baramati conclave was convened by the party last week. 
Though Deshmukh was not available, Congress sources confirmed that the cabinet was unanimous over immediate constitution of the commission. 
"If the government is seen as buckling under the NCP's pressure and delaying the judicial probe, then it will send a wrong signal to people, a senior Congress minister observed Saturday, adding, "We will not do anything to stop the process in midway". 
The NCP leadership, too, is under pressures from other constituents of the Democratic Front ruling the state, especially the Peasants and Workers Party and the Janata Dal (Secular), on the issue. 
At one stage, the senior PWP minister Ganpatrao Deshmukh had even threatened to resign from the cabinet if the probe was delayed, and Chhagan Bhujbal, deputy chief minister, had to agree with the cabinet committee on the proposal for the commission. 
The hawks in the NCP wanted the party oppose the move, but the moderates noted that any opposition to the probe would give the impression to the masses that the NCP had something to hide. 
The NCP has been arguing since the Prime Minister himself was trying to sort out the differences with Enron, the state cabinet should not hurry up with appointment of the judicial commission and, thereby, close doors for negotiations.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

News
Calif. utility closer to bankruptcy
ASSOCIATED PRESS

09/30/2001
The Star-Ledger Newark, NJ
FINAL
034
(c) 2001. The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.

Pushing Southern California Edison one step closer to bankruptcy, five power generators are demanding it repay hundreds of millions of dollars or face possible litigation. 
Officials for the companies - Reliant, Mirant, Dynegy Corp., Enron Corp. and Puget Sound Energy, the biggest investor-owned utility in Washington state - have asked Edison to sign an agreement spelling out how each would be repaid and implied that they would drag the utility into Bankruptcy Court otherwise, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.
Under federal law, any three creditors can force a company to file for bankruptcy if they are owed a combined $10,775. 
Gov. Gray Davis has called for a third session of the state Legislature to deal with the energy crisis and force lawmakers to come up with a plan to save Edison. 
Edison has already agreed to repayment plans with a number of smaller producers who collectively are owed $1.2 billion. Earlier this week, Edison announced a $14 million repayment plan with the city of Long Beach. 
Other companies have opted to wait for the special legislative session, set to convene Oct. 9. 
Under a propsed rescue plan for Edison that the Legislature failed to pass earlier this month, the utility would have repaid its smaller creditors and left the bigger companies without the $1 billion they are owed. 
Edison racked up the $3.9 billion debt over the past year under the state's deregulation plan, which included a rate freeze that kept Edison from passing the full cost of power onto its customers.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

BUSINESS
RULING SLOWS EFFORTS TO AID THOSE BESET WITH HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS
TOM DETZEL - The Oregonian

09/30/2001
Portland Oregonian
SUNRISE
C01
(Copyright (c) The Oregonian 2001)

Summary: After a judge rejects the claims of several Northwest utilities, a commision will once again tackle the issue 
An administrative judge's blunt rejection of claims by Northwest utilities for more than $500 million in wholesale electricity refunds tosses the issue back in the lap of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The sweeping decision by Judge Carmen A. Cintron, issued Monday, is likely to prolong the legal and political haggling over how -- if at all -- to steer relief to consumers who saw bills rise after power prices hit record levels. 
"The ruling is a mixed bag," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who advocates stronger action by the commission to protect ratepayers. "We've got winners and losers in the Northwest under what happened with the huge run-up in prices." 
In part, it was this concern about the difficulty of ordering refunds so as not to unfairly punish or reward utilities that drove Cintron to recommend that the five-member commission drop the Northwest case, which opened in August. 
Seven utilities -- Seattle City Light, Tacoma Power, the Port of Seattle, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Northern Wasco PUD, Clark Public Utilities of Vancouver and Sacramento Municipal Utility District -- sought $505 million in what they said were unjust overcharges for wholesale power they bought. 
The claims were originally part of a larger case involving California's claim to $9 billion in refunds stemming from that state's power crisis, but the regulatory commission's split the Northwest case because of differences in the way the two markets work. 
Under the law, the commission is charged with ensuring that electricity rates are "just and reasonable." The commission has already found that wholesale rates were unjust in California, and a proceeding to determine what refunds are justified there is expected to continue through March. 
Similarly, the commission's charge to Cintron was to determine whether refunds were warranted in the Northwest and, if so, how much is owed to whom. But after two months of legal haggling involving 78 parties and thousands of pages of briefs, Cintron's conclusions were stunningly direct. 
No refunds should be ordered, she said, because the wholesale power market in the Northwest functioned as a competitive market should have. 
Moreover, Cintron said, ordering after-the-fact refunds would have a "chilling effect" on the region's energy markets. 
In the short term, sellers might be reluctant to offer power when it is most needed -- and prices are high. Over the long term, it could hamper investment in new power plants to supplement the Northwest's hydropower base. 
"Given the nearly universal agreement that the Western markets as a whole need substantial new capacity additions in the next several years, a loss of confidence and exit of investors is the very worst result that could be envisioned," Cintron wrote. 
That argument mirrored the case made by a group of parties that included investor-owned utilities such as PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric, power marketing companies such as Enron and Duke Energy and big consumer-owned utilities such as the Grant and Chelan county public utility districts in Washington. 
Among other things, the 42-member group argued that most market players in the Northwest opposed refunds, and that high prices alone were not an indication that sellers were exercising undue market power. 
Cintron agreed, finding that prices during the Dec. 25, 2000, to June 20 refund period proposed by the regulatory commission reflected shortages in water supply from the region's drought, weather- influenced demands and high natural-gas prices. 
As such, "The parties have failed to show that market-based prices charged in the Pacific Northwest during the potential refund period were unjust and unreasonable," Cintron said. 
Some think price was unreasonable 
The judge's finding left DeFazio and some participants in the case perplexed: What could be said in defense of a commission market design that allowed wholesale power prices to peak above $3,000 a megawatt-hour -- more than 100 times the historic price -- and prompt double-digit rate increases for consumers? 
"It's not doing anybody much good to have a market that generates that kind of volatility and those kinds of brutal prices," said Simon ffitch, an assistant attorney general for Washington, which backed the utilities' seeking refunds. 
Wayne Nelson, general manager of Clark Public Utilities, which sought $64 million in the case, said Cintron's reasoning came across as simplistic. 
"She seems to be saying, 'If the market's charging these rates, and everyone's paying them, then they're fair and reasonable,' " Nelson said. "I think you have too look one layer below that to see if the market was reasonable. 
"It seems to me that's where the analysis stopped," he said. 
Resales are complicating factor 
Clark's claim provides an example of the complexity of the case. 
The $64 million is for power the utility purchased from Kaiser Aluminum, which shut Northwest operations because of high electricity costs. But Kaiser had contractual rights to remarket low-cost federal power from the Bonneville Power Administration. 
On Feb. 2, Kaiser agreed to sell Clark 140 megawatts worth of power for delivery in August and September for $325 per megawatt- hour -- more than 14 times the price the BPA was charging Kaiser for the power under its contract. 
Clark's claim prompted Kaiser to join the case and argue that it had no refund liability because Bonneville sold the electricity. Bonneville, in its filings, claimed it shouldn't be required to pay a refund on money it handed to Kaiser or other aluminum company customers who had similar remarketing sales. 
Part of Seattle City Light's $278 million refund claim included electricity the city bought through the BPA from Columbia Falls Aluminum in Montana. 
Bonneville, the region's dominant provider of wholesale electricity, submitted filings in the California refund case suggesting it could be owed refunds of $70 million or more for power purchases it made. But in the Northwest case, the BPA argued against refunds on a variety of grounds. 
Doubts over jurisdiction 
A key claim was that the commission, under the Federal Power Act, has no jurisdiction to order the BPA or consumer-owned utilities -- municipals, PUDs and cooperatives -- to pay refunds. 
Because of this jurisdictional question, a number of parties in the case -- including the Oregon Office of Energy -- argued that there is no practical way to order refunds and be fair to all the market players involved. 
Power marketing companies, investor-owned utilities and others within the commission's jurisdiction could be exposed to refund liability, while theBPA and others would be exempt -- even though all bought and sold electricity in the same market at prices that, while high, were freely agreed to. 
"We do still find that prices are unjust and unreasonable," said Phil Carver of the Oregon energy office. "But how you remedy it in a bilateral market is a mystery to me." 
Commission reaction unknown 
The judge's recommendations now go to the regulatory commission, which next meets Oct. 11. Commission members are prohibited from publicly discussing pending cases, and neither Chairman Pat Wood III nor commissioner William Massey returned calls about Cintron's ruling. 
In July, all five commissioners voted to open the Northwest case. At the time, Massey showed the most sympathy for potential refunds, declaring that ratepayers in the region "paid what I consider to be outrageous prices for power that caused a lot of economic dislocation plant-closings." 
But no one seemed willing to guess how the commission might react to Cintron's findings. 
Even if the commission were to follow Cintron's recommendation and dismiss the case, the decision would be subject to further appeals and rehearings. 
"I don't think this is the last we've heard of it," said Peter Burger, the lawyer who represented Bonneville in the case. "This is just Chapter One." 
You can reach Tom Detzel at 503-294-7604 or by e-mail at tom.detzel@newhouse.com. 
WHAT'S NEXT 
Judge Carmen A. Cintron's recommendations now go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which next meets Oct. 11. The five- member panel could accept them, modify or reject them in part, or order yet more fact-finding.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

Calif Pwr Generators Demand Repayment, Threaten Lawsuit

09/29/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LOS ANGELES (AP)--Pushing Edison Internation's (EIX) Southern California Edison unit one step closer to bankruptcy, five power generators are demanding the company repay hundreds of millions of dollars or face possible litigation. 
Officials for the companies have asked Edison to sign an agreement that would spell out exactly how each would be repaid and implied that they would drag the utility into Bankruptcy Court otherwise, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. 
Under federal law, any three creditors can force a company to file for bankruptcy if they are owed a combined $10,775. The five generating companies collectively are owed hundreds of millions of dollars, although the exact total is not known.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gray Davis has called for a third, extraordinary session of the state Legislature to deal with the energy crisis, and specifically to force lawmakers to come up with a plan to save Edison. 
The demand for repayment came in the form of a letter from William Bates III, an attorney representing the five power generators. In the letter, company officials expressed frustration that Edison has been unwilling to work out a repayment plan. 
"We would be willing to discuss any ideas SCE has about an agreement to repay its debt, but we don't want to waste anybody's time," Bates wrote. "Thus, as a first step we want to know whether SCE is interested in negotiating. ... Please give us a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to that question." 
Edison officials refused comment. 
The five companies are Reliant Energy Inc. (REI), Mirant Corp. (MIR), Dynegy Inc. (DYN), Enron Corp. (ENE) and Puget Sound Energy (PSD), which is the biggest investor-owned utility in Washington state. 
Edison has already agreed to repayment plans with a number of smaller producers who collectively are owed $1.2 billion. Earlier this week, Edison announced a $14 million repayment plan with the city of Long Beach. 
"Edison can take steps to assure that all creditor classes are treated equally," said Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Reliant Energy in Houston, Texas, which is owed at least $100 million by Edison. 
Other companies have opted to wait for the special legislative session, set to convene Oct. 9. 
Under a proposed rescue plan for Edison that the Legislature failed to pass earlier this month, the utility would have repaid its smaller creditors and left the bigger companies without the $1 billion they are owed. 
Edison racked up the $3.9 billion debt over the past year under the state's deregulation plan, which included a rate freeze that kept Edison from passing the full cost of power onto its customers.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

BUSINESS
REGULATORS WILL NOT DELAY PGE INCREASE
GAIL KINSEY HILL - The Oregonian

09/29/2001
Portland Oregonian
SUNRISE
D01
(Copyright (c) The Oregonian 2001)

Summary: The Oregon Public Utility Commission declines a request to postpone an electricity rate increase 
Rate increases for Portland General Electric customers will go into effect Monday as regulators initially had ordered, despite a last-minute effort by consumer and business groups to delay the start date.
Associated Oregon Industries, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities and the Citizens' Utility Board had asked regulators to postpone the increases, arguing "rate shock" and irreparable economic harm. 
Monthly electricity bills will go up an average of 32 percent for residential customers. Rates will rise 37 percent to 53 percent for business customers. 
Portland-based PGE serves 730,000 customers, primarily in the northern Willamette Valley. 
A petition, filed Sept. 24, argued that "the combination of PGE's unprecedented rate increases and the resulting economic impacts for PGE's residential, commercial and industrial customers could deal the local economy a crushing blow." 
In denying the request, the Oregon Public Utility Commission concluded that petitioners had failed to provide adequate evidence that utility customers would be irreparably injured by the increases. 
PUC Chairman Roy Hemmingway said regulators must weigh the interests of utilities as well as customers. 
"PGE had to buy power in a very high-cost power market, and these costs need to be passed on to customers," he said. "To ask PGE to eat these costs would harm PGE and probably be illegal." 
PGE had said that any delay would have cut into finances and forced it to borrow large amounts of money to cover mounting costs. 
"We appreciate the commission upholding its original decision," said Scott Simms, a PGE spokesman. The higher rates reflect "prudently incurred expenses," Simms said. 
The utility commission has yet to rule on a second petition filed by the same three interest groups. This one asks that regulators review the rate increases in light of worsening economic conditions. 
The groups have criticized some of the operating expenses that PGE claimed in seeking the new rates. In addition, they say that the rates could be phased in, thereby easing the impact. 
The commission will decide by Oct. 31 whether they will reconsider the order that put the rates into effect. 
"I think it's good news (the PUC) did not rule at this point on the motion" to reconsider the order, said Jason Eisdorfer, an attorney with the Citizens' Utility Board. "It sounds like they'll thoughtfully go through the arguments."

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 	

California; Metro Desk
Firms Push Edison Near Bankruptcy Energy: Power generators ask firm to spell out how they will be repaid hundreds of millions of dollars for purchases under deregulation plan.
NANCY VOGEL; JERRY HIRSCH
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

09/29/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
B-1
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company

SACRAMENTO -- Five big energy companies owed hundreds of millions of dollars by Southern California Edison pushed the utility a step closer to bankruptcy Friday by asking Edison to sign an agreement spelling out how each will be repaid. 
The companies demanded that Edison meet with them within two weeks to work out a repayment plan and implied that otherwise they would drag the Rosemead-based utility into Bankruptcy Court. Under federal law, any three creditors can force a company to file for bankruptcy if they are owed a combined $10,775. The five generating companies collectively are owed hundreds of millions of dollars, although the exact total is not known.
The letter was a significant step in maneuvering over Edison's fate--a dance that has gone on for months but now appears to be nearing its close. 
Edison has been reaching deals with some of its creditors, but has kept others waiting. Some power generators, in turn, have been threatening to push Edison into bankruptcy, although so far only Mirant Corp. and Reliant Energy have publicly embraced that idea. And Gov. Gray Davis and legislative leaders have continued to debate a plan that the governor believes could avoid a bankruptcy. 
The letter, sent by William Bates III, a Palo Alto attorney representing the five power generators, expressed frustration that Edison so far has been unwilling to work out a repayment plan with large power producers. Under the Edison rescue plan that the Legislature debated and ultimately adjourned without passing earlier this month, Edison would have settled with its smaller creditors but been left with $1 billion in debt to big power sellers. 
"This group of creditors is significant in both number and amount and deserves and requires to be dealt with as such," says the letter to Edison's private attorney, Thomas B. Walper of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles. 
"We would be willing to discuss any ideas SCE has" about an agreement to repay its debt, the letter continues, "but we don't want to waste anybody's time. Thus, as a first step we want to know whether SCE is interested in negotiating. . . . Please give us a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to that question. 
"Of course, we reserve all our rights and remedies in the event that SCE does not want to meet on these terms or we cannot reach a mutually satisfactory agreement," Bates wrote. 
The five companies are Reliant, Mirant, Dynegy Corp., Enron Corp. and Puget Sound Energy, which is the biggest investor-owned utility in Washington state. 
Edison officials refused to comment. 
The frustration on the part of the power generators appeared to mount Tuesday, when Edison announced that it had reached an agreement to pay off its $14-million debt to the city of Long Beach, which sold Edison electricity produced at a trash-fueled power plant on Terminal Island. 
Edison has also reached repayment plans with many small and renewable power producers who collectively are owed $1.2 billion. 
"Edison can take steps to assure that all creditor classes are treated equally," said Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Reliant Energy in Houston, which is owed $100 million to $200 million by Edison. 
A spokesman for Atlanta-based Mirant, which is also owed more than $100 million, sounded a similar note. "It is time SCE made clear when, how much and even if it is going to pay us," Patrick Dorinson said. 
So far, other creditors have balked at the idea of pushing Edison into bankruptcy, believing that a judge would probably consider a bankruptcy petition premature until after the Legislature meets Oct. 9 in a special session to deal exclusively with Edison's plight. 
Davis, who insists that Edison should not be allowed to file for bankruptcy, ordered the new session earlier this month after legislators adjourned without passing any legislation that would shrink Edison's debt. 
Other Creditors Take Notice 
Senate leader John Burton, (D-San Francisco), has said that any such bill would have to guarantee that the burden of paying off the utility's $3.9-billion debt does not fall on homeowners and small-business owners. 
The letter from the five generators caught the attention of other creditors who have so far played along with SCE's strategy of winning a legislative rescue. 
"From our perspective, the days of luxury for Edison are over," said John Moorlach, Orange County treasurer. The county holds $1 million of defaulted SCE bonds in its retirement plan. 
Moorlach said he believes that if SCE does not quickly reach an agreement with the generators, they will push the utility into Bankruptcy Court. 
"By doing this, the generators are trying to show that they are making a good-faith effort to reach a settlement first," Moorlach said. 
But Jay Lawrence, spokesman for the Renewable Energy Creditors Committee, said his members believe the move by the generators shows they have backed off from an immediate involuntary bankruptcy petition filing, at least while they try to open negotiations with SCE. 
"We still want to see a legislative solution, and we are against bankruptcy," Lawrence said. 
Edison provides electricity to 11 million people. It racked up the $3.9-billion debt over the past year as it purchased high-priced electricity in the fledgling market California created under a 1996 deregulation plan. The state's deregulation plan included a rate freeze that barred Edison from passing the full cost of the power it bought on to customers. 
By January, Edison's debt had grown so heavy that power sellers refused to deal with the utility. The state had to step in with taxpayer money to keep electricity flowing. So far, the state has spent $10.7 billion on power purchases. 
Edison's counterpart in Northern California, Pacific Gas & Electric, suffered the same financial squeeze in the state's dysfunctional market. PG&E took itself into bankruptcy in April. 
The generators' demand came on a day when Edison officials said they were close to winning an agreement from bankers to delay collecting on $200 million in loans until Oct. 19. 
Shares of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, rose almost 5% Friday to close at $13.16 on the New York Stock Exchange. 
* 
Times staff writer Nancy Rivera Brooks contributed to this report.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.