Enron, as part of our alliance, ARM, has entered into a settlement w/ SDG&E, 
ORA, DGS and the Golden State Cooperative on Direct Access Service Fees.  
These are fees that the utility could assess on either DA customers or ESPs 
providing service to DA customers.  This settlement has been filed with the 
CPUC.  IT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED YET.  I will notify all if, and when, that 
happens.

SDG&E went particularly "hog-wild" on the number of fees proposed as well as 
the level of the fees.  By our settlement, I believe, conservatively, we have 
eliminated about $100 of additional charges per customer per year.

We have agreed that no fees will be assessed for services that the utility 
provides as part of its market facilitation function through 2002.  This is 
in keeping with the fact that the utility is currently recovering those costs 
through distribution rates as part of a settlement in a separate proceeding 
(376).  Those functions include MSP and MDMA certification, DASR processing, 
EDI acceptance testing, ESP and EDI agreement processing, credit 
establishments and on-going credit checks, processing meter change 
information, providing customer data.

POTENTIAL NEW CHARGES:

Special Services:

Where we ASK the utility to perform functions for us (researching data, 
providing administrative support, non-standard processing of information (ie. 
manual vs. EDI)) there will be a charge.  They must specify to us that the 
service that we are requesting will result in a fee being assessed and what 
the charge will be.  We must agree to the terms before the service is 
provided.  This means we must be very clear in our communications with the 
utility on special requests.  

Exception Fees:

This is where we fail to meet our obligation to the utility and they assess, 
essentially, a penalty.   Examples include missed appointment meets, late 
payments, failure to provide usage data by 11th business day causing utility 
to estimate data, causing a rebill for failure to provide valid usage data.  
(More detailed description is contained within the attached documents.) 
We have negotiated that there be a .5% deadband before any fee is assessed 
for estimating data.  We have negotiated that, to the extent the utility is 
responsible for causing US to rebill, we can accumulate banking credits to 
use against any charges that the utility would assess us.  It provides some 
reciprocity.

We do have a dispute resolution process.  However, if we need an internal 
briefing on the settlement so folks are comfortable about how it will work, I 
would be happy to assist with that. 

Please contact me with any questions.


---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/20/2000 
07:03 PM ---------------------------


"Delaney, Laurie" <LDelaney@sempra.com> on 09/14/2000 03:02:49 PM
To: "'sfc@cpuc.ca.gov'" <sfc@cpuc.ca.gov>, "'jbennett@gmssr.com'" 
<jbennett@gmssr.com>, "'abb@eslawfirm.com'" <abb@eslawfirm.com>, 
"'rmccann@cal.net'" <rmccann@cal.net>, "'athomas@newenergy.com'" 
<athomas@newenergy.com>, "'msw@cpuc.ca.gov'" <msw@cpuc.ca.gov>, 
"'mpetroch@enron.com'" <mpetroch@enron.com>
cc: "Thompson, Vicki L." <VThompson@sempra.com>, "Szymanski, Paul" 
<PSzymanski@sempra.com> 
Subject: A99-06-041 Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement and Joint Peti 
tion to set Aside Submission & Reopen the Record for Purposes of Admittin g a 
Late Filed Exhibit




 - ld2d-#75429-1.DOC
 - ld2d-#75426-1.DOC
 - ld2d-#75427-1.DOC
 - ld2d-#75428-1.DOC