Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of  
D.01-05-064 which ABAG POWER filed on July 13.? On behalf of ABAG, I would  
like to solicit your support of this petition.? The decision in question is  
the Commission's May 15 decision where it approved the rate design for the  
three-cent rate increase.? 
?
You may recall that the decision approved a 12-month surcharge for all  
bundled service customers to make up for the revenue which PG&E and SCE did  
not recover during the interim period between the March 27 issuance of  
D.01-03-082 and the subsequent issuance of the May 15 decision.? You also  
know that the May decision provided specifically that DA customers were NOT 
to  be subject to the rate increase. 
?
The ABAG petition for modification seeks to have the Commission clarify  that 
DA customers who received DA service during the interim period between the  
two decisions should not be subject to the one-year sucharge, even if they 
were  subsequently returned to bundled service.? The arguments supporting 
this  position are as follows:

Direct  access customers were specifically exempted from the 
procurement-related rate  increase because they do not receive procurement 
service.? They should therefore be similarly  exempted from the12-month 
procurement surcharge, even if they subsequently  returned to bundled 
service.?  
The inability of PG&E to pay all amounts  due and owing under the PX credit 
have caused the budgets of ABAG POWER  Members to be placed under significant 
financial stress.? The Member public agencies have  suffered extreme 
financial hardship.?  The application of the 12-month procurement surcharge 
has added to that  burden unnecessarily.
In a separate  proceeding (draft Resolution E-3726),? the Commission has 
expressed  its intent to &guard against inequities8 for direct access 
customers of  SDG&E.? ABAG POWER asks simply  that the Commission afford 
similar protection to the direct access customers  of PG&E who did not 
receive bundled procurement service during the  interval between the March 
and May Decisions.? 
Moreover, in addition  to being inequitable, the application of the 
procurement surcharge to  non-procurement direct access customers would be 
discriminatory and would  cause the utilities to violate the 
anti-discrimination provisions of the  Public Utilities Code, Sections 453(a) 
and 453(c).

ABAG POWER  would very much appreciate the support of ESPs and other market 
participants at  the Commission.? Under Rule 47(f) of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and  Procedure, "Responses to petitions for modification must be 
filed and served  within 30 days of the date that the petition was served, 
unless the  administrative law judge sets a different date. Responses must be 
served on the  petitioner and on all? parties who were served with the 
petition and must  comply with the requirements of Rules 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 
and 2.5."? Filings  sooner than that would be appreciated.? Please give me a 
call or email if  you are willing to file in support of the ABAG petition.? 
Thanks very  much?for your consideration of our request.
?
Dan

Law  Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite  244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:?? (818) 596-2201
Fax:?  (818) 346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com
 - 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc