---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Yang/SFO/EES on 11/15/2000 09:59 AM 
---------------------------
   
	Enron Energy Services
	
	From:  Marianne Castano                           11/15/2000 09:14 AM
	

To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda 
Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, 
Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Richard 
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Melinda Winn/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: PG&E Petition to Modify


	

Please be advised that EES Legal is working with regulatory and litigation 
counsel in California on a strategy to pursue in response to PG&E's 
Petition.  Please do not contact PG&E or communicate any information 
externally regarding this matter without first involving either Mike Smith or 
me.

Thank you.
 
     Marianne

 
---------------------- Forwarded by Marianne Castano/HOU/EES on 11/15/2000 
11:10 AM ---------------------------


Roger Yang
11/15/2000 10:45 AM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Marianne 
Castano/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 
Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis 
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  
Subject: PG&E Petition to Modify

In addressing PG&E's Petition to Modify, we may want to entertain the 
following thoughts:

PG&E and SCE filed their cost recovery plans that implement the "top-down" 
approach to calculating Direct Access charges implemented pursuant to 
Decision No. 96-12-077;
PG&E and SCE entered into stipulations to remove the "direct access zero 
minimum bill"; hence eliminating the cap on PX credits pursuant to Decision 
No. 99-06-058;
Elimination of the PX cap is consistent with AB 1890 adoption of PU Code 
368(b) which states, "The separation of the rate components required by this 
subdivision shall be used to ensure that customers of the electrical 
corporation who become eligible to purchase elctricity from supliers other 
than the electrical corporation pay the same unbundled component charges, 
other than energy, a bundled service customer pays.";
PG&E's Petition to Modify is burdensome and unnecessary because California 
contract law governs the contractual relationship between ESPs and their 
customers and there has been no evidentiary proof of customer complaints or 
demonstration of unpaid costs from ESPs to utilities;
PG&E's Petition to Modify is a veiled attempt to access commercially 
sensitive information which may be abused by the utilities;
PG&E's highlighting of this issue, may subject their shareholders at risk for 
the decisions made by the utility to enter into the stipulation adopted in 
Decision No. 99-06-058;
PG&E's questioning of the legality of the stipulation brings into question 
the legality of all past settlements and stipulations, hence undermining 
their position with respect to nuclear settlements; and
PG&E has demonstrated a track record of misleading the public through their 
irresponsible claims in their GRC filings and customer meetings that there 
will be post-freeze rate decreases above 30%, and in their "Rate Freeze End 
Matrices" that the rate freeze can not end before January 1, 2001 and that as 
prices increase the rate freeze will end at a later date.  This has 
demonstrated that PG&E has covertly attempted to undermine Direct Access.

We should meet with PG&E, to strongly request that they withdraw their 
Petition to Modification and remind them of these points.

Roger


---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Yang/SFO/EES on 11/15/2000 08:10 AM 
---------------------------


Roger Yang
11/13/2000 06:45 PM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Marianne 
Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L 
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: PG&E Petition to Modify

PG&E filed a Petition for Modification of the CPUC decision (D.97-10-087) 
adopting a settlement to eliminate the cap on PX credits and allow for PX 
credits that results in payments to Direct Access customers and their ESPs.  
PG&E is requesting that the CPUC add "clarifying language" to their previous 
decision that states the following:

"PG&E will pay the ESP for accumulated negative charges or credits owing to 
the customer if the ESP provides PG&E documentation showing that either (1) 
the ESP is flowing through to the customer the negative charges or credits 
owing to the customer or (2) the customer has assigned to the ESP the right 
to receive the negative charges or credits owing to the customer."

In its Petition for Modification, PG&E has the nerve to state, "While it is 
not clear whether this result was intended or is even lawful, to the extent 
that PG&E owes these credits, as discussed below the credits belong to direct 
access customers and not to their ESPs.  PG&E cites as the reason for this 
filing is that they are interested in protecting against the risk that ESPs 
are acting fraudulent with their customers.  However, the real reason PG&E is 
raising this issue is to highlight the issue within the context of current 
discussions regarding their request to end their rate freeze.  PG&E even 
recognizes that this issue should be resolved with market participants in 
working groups, but wanted to bring the issue to the attention of the CPUC.

Roger

 
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger Yang/SFO/EES on 11/13/2000 06:24 PM 
---------------------------


Mona L Petrochko@ENRON
11/13/2000 12:57 PM
To: Roger Yang, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: PG&E Petition to Modify

PG&E filed a Pet Mod on the decision which directed them to pass on a PX 
credit to ESPs even if it is in excess of the frozen rate.  PG&E is asking 
that the credit in excess of frozen rates be conditioned upon a showing by 
the ESPs that the customer is receiving the credit.

Legal is aware and is likely to be arranging a conference call on this 
shortly.