-----Original Message-----
From:  Kingerski, Harry  
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:06 PM
To: 'JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>@ENRON'; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim 
Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail)
Subject: RE: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 
01-05-064

I think ABAG has a good point and the principle is one we are also trying to 
establish - if you weren't using DWR power, you shouldn't have to pay for 
it.  But I wonder if Enron's endorsement of ABAG's petition wouldn't 
contaminate it.  I think we should let them win on the merits of their own 
argument and use their success (if it occurs) as precedent for our position 
on similar issues.

Also, there is some downside if they win.  Our customers were on the utility 
for those 3 months, and are now off - the direct opposite of the situation 
ABAG is in.  So if they escape the burden of the 3 month surcharge, it would 
(should) be reimposed on customers who were on the utility at that time - 
which in theory could include our customers, even though they are back on DA 
and otherwise exempt from the surcharge.

So while I think we want them to win, like always, its hard to figure if 
that's good or bad so let's just stay out.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>@ENRON 
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara 
(E-mail)
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 
01-05-064
Importance: High

Attached is a petition for modification of Decision 01-05-064 (the rate
design decision) filed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The
Petition requests that the decision be modified to exempt customers which
were direct access for the period of March through May 2001 from the 12
month procurement surcharge which is designed to allow the utilities to
collect the three cent increase authorized by the March decision which then
did not go into effect until June (i.e., collect the revenues foregone due
to the time lag in implementation).

Given the fact that most of Enron's customers were on bundled service during
the March-June time frame, I do not believe that the requested modification
would provide them any benefit. Let me know if I am wrong on this and if
Enron wants to chime in  in support of ABAG's petition.

Jeanne Bennett

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064
Importance: High


Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064 filed today by ABAG POWER.  Copies have also been sent to all
parties on the service list by U.S. Mail.

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 << File: 
7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc >>