The notion that it would have to be a monthly analysis sounds like pure 
Roger, and could likely be correct.  But we need to determine whether we can 
get what we need by doing a "less precise" annual versus a "monthly."  Seems 
that once we've made that call, we direct the scenario and they do it.  
Thoughts?

Best,
Jeff



	Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	03/07/2001 09:36 AM
		 
		 To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff 
Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: California Rate Assessment (371.35)

Any suggestions to expedite the process?

Robert 

----- Forwarded by Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 03/07/2001 09:38 
AM -----

	"Bill Monsen" <wam@mrwassoc.com>
	03/06/2001 10:31 PM
		 
		 To: Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com
		 cc: ryy@mrwassoc.com, rbw@mrwassoc.com
		 Subject: Re: California Rate Assessment (371.35)


Robert,

Thanks for the note. A conference call at 12:30 pm PST would work for us.
However, on that call, we will not be able to present results of the
additional scenarios that you defined in your e-mail. The model that we
used was an annual rate model. The analysis that you are proposing would
require a monthly model, which would take additional time to develop.
Perhaps we should discuss this prior to the call at 2:30 pm CST. Roger and
I will give you a call when we get into the office on Wednesday morning.
This should be around 11 am CST.

Best regards,

Bill

At 05:32 PM 3/6/01 , Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com wrote:
>Bill and Roger,
>
>Thanks for the quick turn-around on the analysis.  I hope the weekend was
>not totally ruined.  After review of the study, we thought it would be
>useful to further expand the scenarios into a Worst, Base and Best Case.
>The scenarios we would like you to run are outlined in the attached file.
>Each scenario would reflect a wet, dry and normal weather case.
>Please note that each scenario has a different date for surcharge
>implementation.  The Best Case reflects the date included in your original
>analysis.  Along those lines, would you please expand on the rationale for
>assuming the 1/01/02 implementation date.
>
>In addition to reflecting the rate impact on a cents per kwh basis, please
>include a percent impact as well.
>
>Like our original request, we are on a fast-track.  We would like to
>schedule a conference call for 2:30 p.m. central time Wednesday (March 7)
>to discuss the results of your analysis.  Hopefully, the data you have
>already generated can be quickly "massaged" to accomodate the scenarios
>requested.
>
>Please call me at 713 853 3170 if you have any questions.
>
>Robert
>
>(See attached file: California Rate Scenarios.doc)