I would like to step back to the plug number for T&D and suggest another 
method.  The plug, as I understand it, is calculated by building up 
generation cost from the MOU presentation and substracting that number from 
the total utility revenues reflected in the Lynch decision.  Unless the 
generation component reflected in the MOU and Lynch's decision are the same 
(and I don't think they are), this won't result in a proper number.  

For PGE, I am very confident that their non-generation costs are equal to 
$.0391 per kWh based upon PGE data filed in the rate design hearing.  That 
rate multiplied by 81,991 results T&D cost of $3,206.  I think this is the 
number that should be used for PGE.  I don't think you should tie to the 
$11,400 number.  The T&D number would need to be adjusted for the 
core/non-core adjustment factor (core = 125% of average).

For SCE, assuming that the system average generation rate is $.073 and that 
the existing total system average rate is $.1132, that leaves a 
non-generation system average rate of $.042 which equates to total T&D cost 
of $3,519.  Because the PGE and SCE systems have a similar per unit rate for 
T&D (4.02 v 3.91) and the mix between core and non-core are similar I think 
using the 125% factor is reasonable for SCE.

Going through similar calculations and assumptions I come up with a T&D per 
unit cost of $.0623 for SDGE.  Because their mix of core and non-core is 
heavily tilted toward core the above factor would not be applicable.  
Perhaps, not adjusting it at all would not be too far off.

Call me if you have questions.





	Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/18/2001 08:27 AM
		 
		 To: Kortney Brown/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert 
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Jeffrey A Soo/ENRON@enronXgate
		 Subject: RE: Updated Core/Non-Core Analysis

I re-set the Core to Non Core T&D (in cents)  ratio (see the bottom of the 
spreedsheet for relative cost and attached the spreadsheet) to 200%.  As you 
can see the analysis is very sensative to this apportionment.  Robert and 
Harry, any additional ideas about apportioning this would improve the model's 
accuracy.

	PGE	SCE	SDGE
			
Core Rate T&D	             5.721 	         7.240 	        7.616 
Non Core T&D	             2.867 	         3.620 	        3.809 
 Total 	 $          3,836 	 $      5,147 	 $     1,285 
			
			
Core T&D/Non Core T&D	200%	200%	200%



By taking PGE's FYE 2000 10-K, I find the following:


Consumer Rev     $3008
All Other        $3658
Total            $6666

Estimated T&D    $3836
Gen portion      $2830


Consumer Kwh        28,753
Other               53,170
Total               81,923


If 45.1% of revenue is from consumer, and the T&D is estimated at $3836, you 
can apportion T&D if you assume gen is apportioned pro-rata:




                Consumer   Other    Total
Gen                993      1837    2830 
T&D               2015      1821    3836
Total             3008      3658    6666

T&D (cents)/kwh   7.01      3.42    4.68










 -----Original Message-----
From:  Brown, Kortney  
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:31 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Neustaedter, Robert; Kingerski, Harry
Cc: Tribolet, Michael; Soo, Jeffrey A.
Subject: Updated Core/Non-Core Analysis

Attached is the revised Core/Non-Core Analysis per our discussion.  We have 
updated to include the new CPUC rate schedules for PGE and SCE and a toggle 
switch 20- year bond scenario to cover the past utility debt that is the 
burden of Non-Core.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.

Kortney

 << File: CoreNonCoreAnalysiswoDWRNewRates.xls >>