better or worse than ours?



	Dorothy Rothrock <drothrock@cmta.net>
	07/11/2001 12:20 PM
		 
		 To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison Bailout Plan


let me know if delaney doesn't send to you...

d

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> Thanks.  415.782.7854.  Better or worse than ours?
>
>
>                     Dorothy
>                     Rothrock             To:     Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
>                     <drothrock@cm        cc:     Ann.Cohn@sce.com, 
"'Barbara Barkovich
>                     ta.net>              (E-mail)'" 
<brbarkovich@earthlink.net>, "Dominic
>                                          DiMare (E-mail)" 
<dominic.DiMare@calchamber.com>,
>                     07/11/2001           "'John Fielder (E-mail)'" 
<fieldejr@sce.com>,
>                     11:54 AM             "'Phil Isenberg (E-mail)'" 
<isenberg@hmot.com>,
>                                          "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'" 
<jdasovic@enron.com>,
>                                          "'Keith McCrea (E-mail)'" 
<kmccrea@sablaw.com>,
>                                          "'Linda Sherif (E-mail)'" 
<lys@a-klaw.com>,
>                                          "'Linda Sherif (E-mail 2)'" 
<lysherif@yahoo.com>,
>                                          "'Gary Schoonyan (E-mail)'" 
<schoongl@sce.com>,
>                                          "'John White (E-mail)'" 
<vjw@cleanpower.org>,
>                                          dhunter@s-k-w.com, 
Rick.Simpson@asm.ca.gov
>                                          Subject:     Re: Sher Shops 
Alternative Edison
>                                          Bailout Plan
>
>
> I have the plan.....who wants it? send your fax number (and $10 for
> shipping
> and handling....just kidding)
>
> D
>
> Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:
>
> > Folks:  Please see highlighted sections.  Anyone seen Byron's plan?  Know
> > where it's headed, etc.?
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff
> > *************************************************************************
> > Power purchase bills exceed $7.5 billion
> >
> > Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
> > BY MARK GLADSTONE, NOAM LEVEY AND DION NISSENBAUM
> >
> > Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
> >
> > SACRAMENTO -- Six months after jumping into the electricity business, the
> > Davis administration on Monday provided the first detailed glimpse of
> > California's daily power purchases, showing more than $5 billion in
> > payments, much of it to government-owned utilities and private companies
> > that state officials have branded as price gougers.
> >
> > The state spent an additional $2.5 billion on a variety of contracts and
> > other electricity services designed to stabilize the volatile energy
> > markets, according to documents that the state agreed to release last
> week
> > amid a legal dispute over public access to the data.
> >
> > In roughly the first five months of the year, the state shelled out $1.2
> > billion to Atlanta-based Mirant, the most any company was paid for
> > electricity, followed by $1 billion to Powerex, the marketing arm of BC
> > Hydro in British Columbia. It also paid $331 million to the Los Angeles
> > Department of Water and Power.
> >
> > The documents raise questions about some of the common assumptions that
> > have arisen around the electricity crisis. For instance, almost 40
> percent
> > of the state's purchases have come from government-run power generators
> in
> > California and elsewhere, but not Texas; some of the biggest suppliers
> are
> > from the Northwest.
> >
> > Gov. Gray Davis, who has ambitions to run for the White House, has put
> much
> > of the blame for the soaring costs of power on energy companies based in
> > President Bush's home state.
> >
> > The figures are tucked inside 1,770 of pages of invoices that Davis has
> > resisted divulging, saying disclosure would encourage suppliers to charge
> > more. The state, which last month released information on its long-term
> > electricity contracts worth $43 billion, agreed Thursday to release the
> > first quarter details.
> >
> > Short on explanation
> >
> > The figures were disclosed late Monday by the California Department of
> > Water Resources, which buys power for the state's financially strapped
> > major utilities, and seem to buttress the administration's contention
> that
> > the price of power is gradually dropping but offer little or no
> explanation
> > for what prompted the decrease.
> >
> > In January, for instance, the average price for power on the spot market
> > was $321 a megawatt hour. It peaked in April at $332 and dropped to $271
> in
> > May.
> >
> > One megawatt powers about 750 homes.
> >
> > Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said the price data supports the
> governor's
> > assertions that California has been gouged. ``The bad guys are clearly
> the
> > out-of-state generators,'' Maviglio said. ``There has been a significant
> > shift of money out of California.''
> >
> > But the documents fail to shed much light on whether, as the
> administration
> > contends, the price drop was due to long-term power contracts negotiated
> by
> > the state earlier this year. Critics contend that the Davis
> administration
> > panicked and rushed into deals that commit the state to pay high prices
> for
> > many years.
> >
> > Used for support
> >
> > Republican officials used the price information to bolster their attacks
> > against Davis, a Democrat, for signing long-term contracts with power
> > generators even as the price of power on the spot market was coming down,
> > partly because of the declining price of natural gas used to fuel many
> > plants.
> >
> > ``It's more clear than ever that the long-term contracts are a bad
> deal,''
> > said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Camarillo. ``The governor's really
> hurt
> > the ratepayers for the next five or 10 years.''
> >
> > The newly released bills highlight the volatility of California's energy
> > market, where the price per megawatt hour ranged from $70 to $1,000. On
> any
> > given day, the records show, the prices from seller to seller varied
> > widely, with some of the highest prices being charged by public utilities
> > and companies outside Texas.
> >
> > On one day in February, for example, San Diego-based Sempra Energy was
> > charging $165 per megawatt hour, the Eugene Water and Electric Board was
> > charging nearly $500 and Duke Energy, a North Carolina company, was
> > charging up to $575.
> >
> > The state's daily spending peaked May 10 at $102.4 million for all power,
> > including the spot market and contracted power.
> >
> > The state began buying power in mid-January on behalf of the state's
> major
> > utilities, which were unable to borrow money to buy power after amassing
> > enormous debts for electricity.
> >
> > San Jose-based Calpine Corp., which is building several new power plants
> > around California including one in South San Jose, did only $29 million
> > worth of business with the state in the first five months of the year,
> > according to the figures.
> >
> > The state began buying power in mid-January when Pacific Gas & Electric
> Co.
> > and Southern California Edison Co. were on the ropes financially. PG&E
> > later went into bankruptcy.
> >
> > On Monday, state lawmakers took another shot at trying to cobble together
> a
> > plan to rescue financially ailing Edison.
> >
> > While most concede that a rescue plan Davis worked out with Edison will
> not
> > win the necessary support in the Legislature, lawmakers have created
> > several working groups to come up with alternatives.
> >
> > Compromise plan
> >
> > On Monday, state Sen. Byron Sher, D-Redwood City, unveiled the latest
> > compromise proposal that seeks to protect average ratepayers and small
> > businesses from further rate increases and forces everyone else to help
> > finance the Edison bailout.
> >
> > The ``shared pain'' proposal would force power producers, owed about $1
> > billion, to take a 30 percent ``haircut'' and agree to forgive about $300
> > million in Edison debts. Edison would be asked to swallow $1.2 billion --
> > about a third of its debt. And big users would be asked to pay off the
> > remaining $2 billion in debts, possibly by paying higher prices for
> power.
> >
> > In exchange, large companies would be given the opportunity to buy power
> on
> > the open market, a system that would allow many of them to sign cheap
> > energy deals.
> >
> > Sher presented the proposal to Senate Democrats Monday afternoon, but it
> > remains unclear how much support the framework will receive in the
> > Legislature.
> >
> > Contact Mark Gladstone at mgladstone@sjmercury.com or (916) 325-4314.