Christian,

Can we get Pat / John to review this this morning.  I think it is very 
bullish for DWR, but I would appreciate his review in the event we want to 
comment - comments are due this afternoon.

Thanks,

Chris
---------------------- Forwarded by Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT on 
03/21/2001 08:00 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: DWR rate component at the CPUC

Some more info on the issue from Jeanne.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM -----

	Susan J Mara
	03/20/2001 06:52 PM
		 
		 To: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, 
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Scott 
Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001



Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 04:51 PM -----

	JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>
	03/20/2001 04:45 PM
		 
		 To: "Bob Frank (E-mail)" <robert.frank@enron.com>, "Christian Yoder 
(E-mail)" <christian.yoder@enron.com>, "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)" 
<Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, "Jeff Dasovich (Business Fax)" 
<IMCEAFAX-Jeff+20Dasovich+40+2B1+20+28415+29+20782-7854@GMSSR.com>, "Sue Mara 
(E-mail)" <smara@enron.com>, "Tamara Johnson (E-mail)" <tjohnso8@enron.com>
		 cc: "'acomnes@enron.com'" <acomnes@enron.com>
		 Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001


Attached is a ruling by ALJ DeUlloa issued yesterday pertaining to the
calculation of the California Procurement Adjustment.  A draft decision was
suppose to be release on such on Friday, March 16th.  It was not, and now we
know why.  On March 14th, the Department of Water Resources wrote to the
Commission to give the commission its views on how the CPA should be
calculated. In his ruling of yesterday DeUlloa stated that he would wait to
issue the PD so as to take into account DWR's submission. He also provided
parties until tomorrow to file comments on the DWR letter (which is attached
to the ruling).

Not surprising, DWR has a different view of the world than the UDCs do when
it comes to calculating the CPA.  The UDCs view the CPA as residual amount
left over from the generation component of their bundled rate on 1/5/01
after the cost of their retained generation (including QFs and bilateral
contracts) are subtracted out. DWR views the CPA as a rate (i.e., a cent per
kWh) which would be paid to DWR by the UDCs every month. It is DWR's view
that a Total Generation Related Rate must be calculated which is a blended
average of the cost of the UDC retained generation and the cost of the "net
short" power.  From this total rate (e.g.., 5 cent) the cost  of the UDC
retained generation (e.g., 2 cent) would be subtracted and the remainder
(i.e., 3 cent per kwh) would be the CPA.  This CPA would be subject to
further allocation by the Commission to determine the Fixed Department of
Water Resources Set-Aside. DWR is not asking that such allocation be done
now.

DWR's view of the world would place it in a sounder financial position,
making it a more viable purchaser of electricity for California, but would
place the UDCs in more dire straights.

Please let me know by tomorrow at noon if you want to comment on the DWR
proposal.

Jeanne Bennett


> -----Original Message-----
>  <<CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc>>

 - CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc