Are we working on this in Sacramento?  Do we have language?  What is the 
level of interest?

Jim


----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/01/2001 09:05 PM -----

	Mark Fillinger@ECT
	02/28/2001 02:18 PM
		
		 To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Hap 
Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff 
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul 
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: QF Meeting Today--Highlights

For the last two days I participated in the negotiations between several QFs 
and the utilities regarding implementation of SBX 47. The goal of the meeting 
was to present a substantially complete "Agreement of Long-Term Gas Purchase 
Arrangement"  to Battin this Thursday. Through this document they intend to 
describe what the parties have agreed to and the changes required in the bill 
to conform to the parties agreement. 

Attendees included PG&E and SDG&E (SCE is clearly opposed to the bill), 
Calpine, El Paso, Sithe and the CCC represented by White and Case. It appears 
that SDG&E's support for the bill is weakening with their mantra being "if 
this doesn't guarantee a price reduction over the five years we won't support 
the bill." We explained that the goal is not so much overall price reduction 
as price stabilization, with current period price reduction. PG&E clearly 
gets it. 

I was successful in introducing and inserting the financial hedging option 
into the Gas Agreement. Both PG&E and SDG&E are very supportive of such an 
option as they are currently prohibited from entering into such arrangements. 
It is less clear if the large QFs are supportive. Their primary goal is to 
find a safe harbor from the Wood decision for the next five years. I also 
believe the proposed gas procurement structure provides some option value to 
the larger QFs. 

Although it looks like our language will be in the Gas Agreement, I think we 
need to get some language in the bill itself. I am working with Sandi and 
Mike Day to make that happen. We may also want to add the concept of economic 
dispatch to the bill. Mike, do you have any suggested language that I could 
forward to Sandi and Mike Day? Finally, I suggest we try and set up 
individual meetings with the utilities (including SCE) to discuss our ideas 
further. I'm not sure what other conversations are occurring with the 
utilities, but I would be happy to set up the meetings with the appropriate 
people.

Thanks,

Mark




	Alan Comnes
	02/27/2001 08:32 PM
		 
		 To: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F 
Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark Fillinger/SF/ECT@ECT, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff 
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: QF Meeting Today--Highlights

Despite the fact the bill, by itself, does not guarantee payment for overdue 
receivables, the QFs on today's call decided to go forward and push for SBX 
47 irrespective of the progress on SBX 33.  A press conference is planned for 
Friday by IEP.  Bowen, who heads up the first committee that this bill will 
go through will have hearings on this bill on Tuesday at the earliest.

Jan S-J asked every QF to fax to IEP a description of all QF generation and 
the zip code of each project so that they can begin lobbying specific 
legislators.  A significant PR push is planned.

SBX 47 is opposed by SCE.  PG&E's position appears more ambivalent.  One 
angle would be to try to get PG&E to support Enron's swap/SC language and 
make inclusion of such language a condition of PG&E's support.

GAC