----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 06/19/2001 05:36 PM -----

	"Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com>
	06/18/2001 07:56 PM
		 
		 To: "Tamara Johnson" <tjohnso8@enron.com>, "Robert Berry" <berry@apx.com>, 
"Denice Cazalet Purdum" <dpurdum@apx.com>, "Ed Cazalet" <ed@cazalet.com>, 
"Bill Ross" <billr@calpine.com>, "Bob Anderson" <Bob_Anderson@apses.com>, 
"Carolyn Baker" <cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Charles Miessner" 
<camiessn@newwestenergy.com>, "Corby Gardiner" <jcgardin@newwestenergy.com>, 
"Curt Hatton" <curt.hatton@neg.pge.com>, "Curtis Kebler" 
<curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Gary Ackerman" 
<foothillservices@mindspring.com>, "George Vaughn" 
<gavaughn@duke-energy.com>, "Greg Blue" <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "Jack Pigott" 
<jackp@calpine.com>, "Janie Mollon" <jsmollon@newwestenergy.com>, "Jeff 
Dasovich" <jeff.dasovich@enron.com>, "Joe Paul" <jmpa@dynegy.com>, "Nam 
Nguyen" <nam.nguyen@powersrc.com>, "Randy Hickok" <rjhickok@duke-energy.com>, 
"Rob Nichol" <rsnichol@newwestenergy.com>, "Roger Pelote" 
<roger.pelote@williams.com>, "Steve Huhman" <steve.huhman@mirant.com>, "Sue 
Mara" <susan_j_mara@enron.com>, "Vicki Sandler" <vicki_sandler@apses.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: PG&E Motion For Special Hearings



PG&E has filed the attached?&Motion for Further Proceedings  Regarding 
Implementation of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)  Revenue 
Requirement Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 360.5 and Water  Code 
Sections 80002.5 and 80110.8? The Motion requests that the Commission  
provide an opportunity for expedited evidentiary hearings and development of 
a  formal record on the calculation, allocation, rate design and 
implementation of  DWR,s revenue requirement and Fixed DWR Set-Aside under AB 
1X and the  Commission,s decisions implementing AB 1X.? The Motion does not 
request any  Commission proceedings to review the reasonableness or amount of 
DWR,s revenue  requirement.? However, without hearings and a formal record on 
the  allocation of DWR,s revenue requirement, PG&E contends that there is a  
significant risk of disagreement and litigation among interested parties and 
DWR  over the allocation of DWR,s revenue requirement and the revenue 
requirement  needed by the utilities to continue serving their retail 
customers and paying  their existing power suppliers.? The utility also makes 
the dramatic  statement that:
?
"If it takes interested parties 24 hours a day, seven days a week locked in  
a room together to reach this consensus and secure the revenue stream for 
both  DWR and the utilities, PG&E is willing to devote the time, effort and  
resources to do so."
?
With regard to DA suspension, PG&E states that, "Finally, in a June 12,  
2001, letter to interested parties, the DWR, State Treasurer,s Office and  
Department of Finance requested certain protections against customers who 
might  seek to avoid paying DWR,s revenue requirement by switching to 
alternative  energy providers under direct access programs, an issue which 
would need to be  resolved by the Commission or the Legislature prior to 
implementation of DWR,s  revenue requirement."? There is no other reference 
to DA suspension, but  this makes it sound as if the issue would be inclujded 
in the proceeding  proposed by PG&E.
?
Under the expedited schedule proposed by PG&E, the Commission would be  able 
to issue a final decision on all DWR revenue requirement issues by July 26,  
2001(although the caption for this section says July 19, the text and a 
schedule  shows the later date).? DWR testimony would be due on June 27 and  
intervenor and utility testimony on July 2.
?
?
?
Dan Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244
Woodland  Hills, CA 91367
Tel:?? (818) 596-2201
Fax:? (818)  346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com
?
?
Dan Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244
Woodland  Hills, CA 91367
Tel:?? (818) 596-2201
Fax:? (818)  346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com

?

 - Blank Bkgrd.gif
 - 6-18-01 PG&E Motion.doc