Attached is an email from John White, which I received after finishing
the merged comments this evening.

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received: from mx7.quiknet.com ([207.183.249.87]) by a-k.a-klaw.com with SMTP 
(Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id M6XMYC1P; 
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:33:28 -0700
Received: (qmail 63148 invoked by uid 41); 14 Jun 2001 04:33:40 -0000
Received: from 68.95.fo.dsl.quiknet.com (HELO WORKSTATION02) (207.231.95.68)  
by mx7.quiknet.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 04:33:40 -0000
Message-ID: <005c01c0f488$421efab0$6800a8c0@WORKSTATION02>
From: "V. John White" <vjw@cleanpower.org>
To: "Evelyn Kahl" <ek@a-klaw.com>
Cc: "Phil Isenberg" <isenberg@hmot.com>, "Mike Florio" <mflorio@turn.org>
Subject: Environmental Comments on Working Draft
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:12:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000



After reviewing the last draft, my environmental colleagues and I would like
to offer the following comments and suggestions for consideration by the
group as part of a final document:

1. The proposal should include an additional environmental
stewardship component focussing on the disposition and management of
environmentally sensitive SCE landholdings and the operation of the hydro
facilities. We will follow up with specific language when needed:

a.   Lands:  At a minimum, commitments regarding SCE's lands should match
what SCE already agreed to in the MOU with the Governor.

Environmentalists and key legislators believe we should improve upon the
MOU, and have urged these
commitments  be expanded to include additional lands (as inventoried by the
Resources Agency) and improved protections.

b.   Hydro Operations: In addition, the proposal should incorporate
explicit commitments to restore aquatic environments harmed by hydro
operations.  The MOU SCE signed with CHRC (and others) in late 1999 could
provide a template here.

To address concerns about energy impacts of restoring flows,
implementation could be conditioned on restoration of a healthy reserve
margin (as specified in section 1.2 of the current document).


(3). Consider adding to section 2 a requirement that customers over 200 kW
who elect to stay in the core must be on real time pricing rates.  Thanks to
a generous allocation of public funds, these customers will all soon
have the meters and software that can support RTP.  This term could be
conditioned on a requirement that the rate be structured so that with RTP
they would pay no more than they would under current rates (including new
adders applied as part of the deal)  if they continued current usage
patterns.

Alternatively a tariff could  be structured for them that provides a
certain share of energy at the avg. core price but subjects incremental
consumption to the core's marginal procurement cost (which would not
necessarily always be the spot price).  If the CEC's
program to install real time meters is expanded down to smaller customers,
this requirement could be extended to them.

(4).      We found the following terms/phrases were ambiguous, and seek
clarification:

a.   Section 2.3- what is meant by "backstop" spot market purchases- is SCE
buying spot energy and reselling it to the customer at cost, so that other
customers' exposure to spot prices does not increase?  Is a real-time
pricing mechanism for such purchases envisioned?

b.   Section 3.1.1.1  What is the "time-of-use feature" mentioned in the
last sentence?

c.   Section 3.1.1.3 implies that SCE will be back in the power plant
building business.  Are they required to build new capacity to meet load
growth, or can they contract out for it?  Is any transparent, publi process
envisioned to ensure that SCE's  planning and procurement
activities are prudent and timely?

d.   Section 5.  Does this provision overturn the CPUC's adoption of the
TURN accounting rule?  One reading of the definition of Net Undercollected
Amount in the MOU is that it is calculated based on the TCBA w/o netting
against the TRA.

e.   Section 5.1.  Mike Florio's bracketed comment seems to imply that
there will be a new rate freeze for (core) customers under 20 kW-- true?

f.   Does "customer specific generation" ((SEction 8) refer only to cogen
or does this term also encompass distributed generation?

How will the customer specific generation be integrated with the
distribution and transmission grid if there is no jurisdiction by the PUC
and the ISO?

Shouldn't the value of the self generation to the distribution and
transmission system be the critical factor in determining eligibility for
subsidy by ratepayers or taxpayers?

Ralph Cavanagh has some additional concerns with this section, and will be
forwarding some specific suggestions.