FYI.  Appears now that the option some customers have to put facilities to us is viewed as a negative.
 
Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message----- 
From: Blachman, Jeremy 
Sent: Wed 10/17/2001 6:01 AM 
To: Schwarz, Angela; Adams, Gregory; Frazier, Lamar; Hughes, Evan; Mann, Michael; Muench, Gayle W. 
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Letke, Eric 
Subject: Re: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01



Please take careful note of the attached, regardless of this, I want all contracts get rid of any "put" obligations to incorporate new facilities !!

Lamar/Kevin, who is now on point commercially for the PacBell (SBC) contract ?

Jeff, I prusume yoo meant 9/20/01 in your 7th bullet point below, not 10/20/01 ?


Jeremy

  


From:   Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM

To:     Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES

cc:      

Subject:        Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01

??????? In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."

??????? The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.

??????? Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.

??????? In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.

??????? Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.  

??????? Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.

??????? The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01.  The precise language is cited below.

??????? If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.

Best,

Jeff

"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service.  Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001."  pp 20-21