Sounds like a good idea.  



	Vicki Sharp@EES
	01/07/2001 12:12 PM
		
		 To: JMB <JBennett@GMSSR.com> @ ENRON
		 cc: "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com>@ENRON, "'ryang@enron.com'" 
<ryang@enron.com>@ENRON, "'msmith1@enron.com'" <msmith1@enron.com>@ENRON, 
"'vsharp@enron.com'" <vsharp@enron.com>@ENRON, MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com>@ENRON
		 Subject: Re: PG&E Advice Letter Implementing Surcharge

Can we discuss this on the MOnday call?  



JMB <JBennett@GMSSR.com> on 01/05/2001 04:21:14 PM
To: "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com>, "'ryang@enron.com'" 
<ryang@enron.com>, "'msmith1@enron.com'" <msmith1@enron.com>, 
"'vsharp@enron.com'" <vsharp@enron.com>
cc: MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com> 
Subject: PG&E Advice Letter Implementing Surcharge


Something I forgot to mention in the last e-mail regarding PG&E's Advice
Letter implementing the surcharge is that they  appear to have gone a step
beyond what the Commission directed them to do.

The Commission directed them to create a balancing account to track the
revenues obtained from the surcharge (just in case, in the unlikely event,
they have to refund them).  PG&E created the balancing account for this
purpose but also stated that they would transfer (on a monthly basis) any
ongoing procurement costs which were not recovered through the TRA (i.e.,
from ongoing revenues) to this new balancing account as well.  It is unclear
what PG&E's purpose is for doing such except  maybe to stop the
undercollection in the TRA from getting any bigger and hope that they will
have a better shot of recovering undercollections in the new balancing
account.

Again let us know if you want us to comment on the advice letter with
respect to this issue and the direct access issue mentioned in the previous
e-mail.  Energy Division only has five business days to review the Advice
Filing -- so any comments/protest of the filing must go in early next week.

Jeanne Bennett