sshhhhhh......let's keep it between us.  (and don't worry, we're having fun 
in the contempt proceeding that's underway right now as part of Dunn's 
hearings.)

Best,
Jeff



	Dorothy Rothrock <drothrock@cmta.net>
	07/11/2001 03:11 PM
		 
		 To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison Bailout Plan


i think you just lucked out for now.....when they hear enron gets out without 
a scratch
they will expand their definition to include you, too.

D

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> glad we're not a generator.
>
> best,
> jeff
>
>
>                     Dorothy
>                     Rothrock             To:     Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
>                     <drothrock@cm        cc:
>                     ta.net>              Subject:     Re: Sher Shops 
Alternative Edison
>                                          Bailout Plan
>                     07/11/2001
>                     12:45 PM
>
>
>
> worse for SCE and generators, who have to eat the small guy share of the
> undercollection
> between them. No transmission sale.
>
> D
>
> Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:
>
> > better or worse than ours?
> >
> >
> >                     Dorothy
> >                     Rothrock             To:     Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
> >                     <drothrock@cm        cc:
> >                     ta.net>              Subject:     Re: Sher Shops
> Alternative Edison
> >                                          Bailout Plan
> >                     07/11/2001
> >                     12:20 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > let me know if delaney doesn't send to you...
> >
> > d
> >
> > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks.  415.782.7854.  Better or worse than ours?
> > >
> > >
> > >                     Dorothy
> > >                     Rothrock             To:
> Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
> > >                     <drothrock@cm        cc:     Ann.Cohn@sce.com,
> > "'Barbara Barkovich
> > >                     ta.net>              (E-mail)'"
> > <brbarkovich@earthlink.net>, "Dominic
> > >                                          DiMare (E-mail)"
> > <dominic.DiMare@calchamber.com>,
> > >                     07/11/2001           "'John Fielder (E-mail)'"
> > <fieldejr@sce.com>,
> > >                     11:54 AM             "'Phil Isenberg (E-mail)'"
> > <isenberg@hmot.com>,
> > >                                          "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'"
> > <jdasovic@enron.com>,
> > >                                          "'Keith McCrea (E-mail)'"
> > <kmccrea@sablaw.com>,
> > >                                          "'Linda Sherif (E-mail)'"
> > <lys@a-klaw.com>,
> > >                                          "'Linda Sherif (E-mail 2)'"
> > <lysherif@yahoo.com>,
> > >                                          "'Gary Schoonyan (E-mail)'"
> > <schoongl@sce.com>,
> > >                                          "'John White (E-mail)'"
> > <vjw@cleanpower.org>,
> > >                                          dhunter@s-k-w.com,
> > Rick.Simpson@asm.ca.gov
> > >                                          Subject:     Re: Sher Shops
> > Alternative Edison
> > >                                          Bailout Plan
> > >
> > >
> > > I have the plan.....who wants it? send your fax number (and $10 for
> > > shipping
> > > and handling....just kidding)
> > >
> > > D
> > >
> > > Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks:  Please see highlighted sections.  Anyone seen Byron's plan?
> > Know
> > > > where it's headed, etc.?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > *************************************************************************
> > > > Power purchase bills exceed $7.5 billion
> > > >
> > > > Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
> > > > BY MARK GLADSTONE, NOAM LEVEY AND DION NISSENBAUM
> > > >
> > > > Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
> > > >
> > > > SACRAMENTO -- Six months after jumping into the electricity business,
> > the
> > > > Davis administration on Monday provided the first detailed glimpse of
> > > > California's daily power purchases, showing more than $5 billion in
> > > > payments, much of it to government-owned utilities and private
> > companies
> > > > that state officials have branded as price gougers.
> > > >
> > > > The state spent an additional $2.5 billion on a variety of contracts
> > and
> > > > other electricity services designed to stabilize the volatile energy
> > > > markets, according to documents that the state agreed to release last
> > > week
> > > > amid a legal dispute over public access to the data.
> > > >
> > > > In roughly the first five months of the year, the state shelled out
> > $1.2
> > > > billion to Atlanta-based Mirant, the most any company was paid for
> > > > electricity, followed by $1 billion to Powerex, the marketing arm of
> BC
> > > > Hydro in British Columbia. It also paid $331 million to the Los
> Angeles
> > > > Department of Water and Power.
> > > >
> > > > The documents raise questions about some of the common assumptions
> that
> > > > have arisen around the electricity crisis. For instance, almost 40
> > > percent
> > > > of the state's purchases have come from government-run power
> generators
> > > in
> > > > California and elsewhere, but not Texas; some of the biggest
> suppliers
> > > are
> > > > from the Northwest.
> > > >
> > > > Gov. Gray Davis, who has ambitions to run for the White House, has
> put
> > > much
> > > > of the blame for the soaring costs of power on energy companies based
> > in
> > > > President Bush's home state.
> > > >
> > > > The figures are tucked inside 1,770 of pages of invoices that Davis
> has
> > > > resisted divulging, saying disclosure would encourage suppliers to
> > charge
> > > > more. The state, which last month released information on its
> long-term
> > > > electricity contracts worth $43 billion, agreed Thursday to release
> the
> > > > first quarter details.
> > > >
> > > > Short on explanation
> > > >
> > > > The figures were disclosed late Monday by the California Department
> of
> > > > Water Resources, which buys power for the state's financially
> strapped
> > > > major utilities, and seem to buttress the administration's contention
> > > that
> > > > the price of power is gradually dropping but offer little or no
> > > explanation
> > > > for what prompted the decrease.
> > > >
> > > > In January, for instance, the average price for power on the spot
> > market
> > > > was $321 a megawatt hour. It peaked in April at $332 and dropped to
> > $271
> > > in
> > > > May.
> > > >
> > > > One megawatt powers about 750 homes.
> > > >
> > > > Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said the price data supports the
> > > governor's
> > > > assertions that California has been gouged. ``The bad guys are
> clearly
> > > the
> > > > out-of-state generators,'' Maviglio said. ``There has been a
> > significant
> > > > shift of money out of California.''
> > > >
> > > > But the documents fail to shed much light on whether, as the
> > > administration
> > > > contends, the price drop was due to long-term power contracts
> > negotiated
> > > by
> > > > the state earlier this year. Critics contend that the Davis
> > > administration
> > > > panicked and rushed into deals that commit the state to pay high
> prices
> > > for
> > > > many years.
> > > >
> > > > Used for support
> > > >
> > > > Republican officials used the price information to bolster their
> > attacks
> > > > against Davis, a Democrat, for signing long-term contracts with power
> > > > generators even as the price of power on the spot market was coming
> > down,
> > > > partly because of the declining price of natural gas used to fuel
> many
> > > > plants.
> > > >
> > > > ``It's more clear than ever that the long-term contracts are a bad
> > > deal,''
> > > > said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Camarillo. ``The governor's
> really
> > > hurt
> > > > the ratepayers for the next five or 10 years.''
> > > >
> > > > The newly released bills highlight the volatility of California's
> > energy
> > > > market, where the price per megawatt hour ranged from $70 to $1,000.
> On
> > > any
> > > > given day, the records show, the prices from seller to seller varied
> > > > widely, with some of the highest prices being charged by public
> > utilities
> > > > and companies outside Texas.
> > > >
> > > > On one day in February, for example, San Diego-based Sempra Energy
> was
> > > > charging $165 per megawatt hour, the Eugene Water and Electric Board
> > was
> > > > charging nearly $500 and Duke Energy, a North Carolina company, was
> > > > charging up to $575.
> > > >
> > > > The state's daily spending peaked May 10 at $102.4 million for all
> > power,
> > > > including the spot market and contracted power.
> > > >
> > > > The state began buying power in mid-January on behalf of the state's
> > > major
> > > > utilities, which were unable to borrow money to buy power after
> > amassing
> > > > enormous debts for electricity.
> > > >
> > > > San Jose-based Calpine Corp., which is building several new power
> > plants
> > > > around California including one in South San Jose, did only $29
> million
> > > > worth of business with the state in the first five months of the
> year,
> > > > according to the figures.
> > > >
> > > > The state began buying power in mid-January when Pacific Gas &
> Electric
> > > Co.
> > > > and Southern California Edison Co. were on the ropes financially.
> PG&E
> > > > later went into bankruptcy.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, state lawmakers took another shot at trying to cobble
> > together
> > > a
> > > > plan to rescue financially ailing Edison.
> > > >
> > > > While most concede that a rescue plan Davis worked out with Edison
> will
> > > not
> > > > win the necessary support in the Legislature, lawmakers have created
> > > > several working groups to come up with alternatives.
> > > >
> > > > Compromise plan
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, state Sen. Byron Sher, D-Redwood City, unveiled the latest
> > > > compromise proposal that seeks to protect average ratepayers and
> small
> > > > businesses from further rate increases and forces everyone else to
> help
> > > > finance the Edison bailout.
> > > >
> > > > The ``shared pain'' proposal would force power producers, owed about
> $1
> > > > billion, to take a 30 percent ``haircut'' and agree to forgive about
> > $300
> > > > million in Edison debts. Edison would be asked to swallow $1.2
> billion
> > --
> > > > about a third of its debt. And big users would be asked to pay off
> the
> > > > remaining $2 billion in debts, possibly by paying higher prices for
> > > power.
> > > >
> > > > In exchange, large companies would be given the opportunity to buy
> > power
> > > on
> > > > the open market, a system that would allow many of them to sign cheap
> > > > energy deals.
> > > >
> > > > Sher presented the proposal to Senate Democrats Monday afternoon, but
> > it
> > > > remains unclear how much support the framework will receive in the
> > > > Legislature.
> > > >
> > > > Contact Mark Gladstone at mgladstone@sjmercury.com or (916) 325-4314.