Jeff, I have looked at your fax.  This is a tough one, due to conflicting agendas.  If we are actually PAID the PX Credits (or the remaining cumulative unpaid credit balances) SCE may be correct, e.g. if an ESP's purchased wholesale energy at the PX Credit rate or lower,  than their total cost of energy supply is the same or less than that of a Bundled customer.  The impact on the TRA account should have been the same regardless of customer type, but only if they can prove the PX credit actually equals their purchase cost.  This may re-open the audit issue.  How does anyone really know that SCE did not enter into purchase contracts at other than PX - market rates?   If they did, they credits should be in this account as well. 

As you know,  we have not been PAID these PX amounts.  

I probably do not have enough history re the TRA accounting to give you a good defense against their argument, other than a  non-by passable charge should not apply if the credit is not PAID.

One other thought, shouldn't the amount of unrecovered TRA also be born by the utility (of course, it would help if they were not almost bankrupt).  The intent all along is the utilities were given a set period of time to recover this amount, and once the time elapsed, tough luck.  How does this play into this.  Should they be kept whole, if they were not able to execute this plan.  

Thanks,
Wanda

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff  
Sent:	Wednesday, September  26, 2001 6:23 PM
To:	Tribolet, Michael; Curry, Wanda
Subject:	Edison's Argument Regarding PX Credit

I'd like to fax you something that Edison sent in support of their argument that:

1) by virture of the PX credit framework, DA customers contributed to Edison's undercollection, and,
2) DA customers should therefore contribute to the recovery of the undercollection.

Could I get your fax numbers?  Would like to get your comments once you've reviewed the argument.  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff