Wes,

If Edison sticks to their plan, they will want to meet before November 7th.  They are wanting to discuss completely different issues than PG&E   To date, PG&E issues have been focused around the outcome of the FERC refund case. I have worked through a couple of examples of this under collection issue with Jeff and we agree, Edison's  argument  that the DA load contributed to the under collection is "technically" correct.   We will have to work with Jeff to build a compelling argument that ESP's should not be required to continue to contribute to the under collection, especially as of March 31, 2002, the end of the rate freeze as required in AB 1890.   Somehow we have to convince "the regulators"  that the original intent of the de-reg bill, that utilities recover what they can through no later than March, 02,  stay in place for the current DA load.  

Will keep you posted. 

Wanda


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff  
Sent:	Tuesday, October  23, 2001 5:02 PM
To:	Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.; Kean, Steven J.; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann; Calger, Christopher F.; Belden, Tim; Dietrich, Janet
Subject:	Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid

I talked to John Fielder (SVP Edison) about setting up a meeting for Barry Tycholiz with Edison's CFO about hedging Edison's QF price risk. Fielder wanted to talk about the negative CTC issue. Here's what he said:

They plan to "settle" with the ESPs and pay them when they pay everyone else, which he re-iterated would be sometime in Q1'02.
Edison is holding firm to the notion that the negative CTC contributed to the utility's undercollection and that the ESP's share of the undercollection has to be netted against the payables attributable to the negative CTC and owed the ESP.
He said that they will propose to net it out in one of two ways:  1) lump sum netting (i.e., if they owe $50MM and the share of the undercollection is $30 MM, then they pay the ESP $20 MM; or 2) future reductions in PX Credit (i.e., they pay the ESP $50 MM, and then reduce the PX going forward until the $30 MM is paid down).  The numbers are illustrative only.
In addition, he said that they have the view that a decision is going to have to be made about 1) whether DA customers pay for stranded costs tied to the DWR L-T contracts, and 2) whether DA customers pay going forward for stranded costs tied to the QF contracts.  (Edison is clearly lobbying the PUC to get DA customers to pay for these costs.)
I recommended strongly that he de-link issues 1 and 2 above from the issue of paying us ASAP what they owe us for negative CTC.  He agreed.
He said that the PUC judge's recently issued pre-hearing conference order requires that Edison "meet and confer" with ESPs prior to the Nov. 7th hearing, and that Edison intends to set something up with ESPs prior to that hearing.
Fielder is also the point person on "getting ESPs paid" and intends to initiate settlement discussions with ESPs week after next.
It was very clear from the conversation that Edison is going to do everything possible (at the expense of creditors) to maximize headroom under the settlement it struck with the PUC a few weeks ago.  Edison's stalemate with the QFs is evidence of it.  We shouldn't assume anything different with the Negative CTC issue.

If you have any questions, let us know.

Best,
Jeff