I agree with Jim -- we're less concerned about the mechanism for true-up.  I 
think our main concern with the part of the MOU related to URG is who gets 
the benefits -- and tying that position into whatever we decide on other 
issues.
/TJ




James D Steffes@ENRON
05/07/2001 11:47 AM
To: JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>
cc: "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)" <Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, "Jeff Dasovich 
(E-mail)" <jdasovic@enron.com>, "Jim Steffes (E-mail)" 
<James_D_Steffes@enron.com>, "Lelie Lawner (E-mail)" 
<Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>, "Robert Neustaedter (E-mail)" 
<Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com>, "Scott Stoness (E-mail)" 
<sstoness@enron.com>, "Tamara Johnson (E-mail)" <tjohnso8@enron.com> 
Subject: Re: Comments on ACR re SCE's MOU  

Team --

My initial response is that this is not  a key issue for Enron (given 
everything else).  I'd rather simply know how the process is to work going 
forward, than make a big case either way.

Jim






JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com> on 05/07/2001 11:15:58 AM
To: "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)" <Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, "Jeff Dasovich 
(E-mail)" <jdasovic@enron.com>, "Jim Steffes (E-mail)" 
<James_D_Steffes@enron.com>, "Lelie Lawner (E-mail)" 
<Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>, "Lelie Lawner (E-mail)" <Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>, 
"Robert Neustaedter (E-mail)" <Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com>, "Scott Stoness 
(E-mail)" <sstoness@enron.com>, "Tamara Johnson (E-mail)" <tjohnso8@enron.com>
cc:  

Subject: Comments on ACR re SCE's MOU



About ten days ago, I sent the attached E-mail containing an Assigned
Cmmr.'s Ruling pertaining to the SCE MOU. The  ACR set forth a "model" for
determining revenue requirements for SCE's retained generation. On Friday,
SCE, as directed, filed comments on the Ruling.  Comments from other parties
are due this Friday, the 11th.

Of primary importance is that SCE used its comments to promote the
methodology for recovery of retained generation costs it had set forth in
Advice 1534-E-A (forwarded  to you last week).  This method provides for an
annual rate true-up mechanism and trigger mechanism.  Such mechanisms allow
for rate increases (or decreases) with the filing of an advice letter.

If we are opposed to such trigger / true-up mechanisms  we need to submit
comments on Friday and/or  a protest of the Advice Filing (also due on the
11th).

Jeanne Bennett


> -----Original Message-----
> From: JBennett
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: Harry Kingerski (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Robert Neustaedter
> (E-mail); Scott Stoness (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail); Tamara Johnson
> (E-mail)
> Cc: MDay
> Subject: FW: Com Lynch & ALJ DeUlloa's Ruling mailed 4/27/01
> (A.00-11-038 et a l.)
>
> Attached is an Assigned Cmmr.' ruling issued this afternoon pertaining to
> SCE's Memorandum of Understanding with the Governor.
> The ruling is soliciting comments on the appropriate manner of regulating
> utility retained generation. The Ruling sets forth a specific model and
> asks parties to comment thereon.  Comments are due May 11, 2001.
>
>
>
>
>  <<CPUC01-#96386-v1-A0011038_ET_AL_LYN_JRD_RULING_.doc>>

 - CPUC01-#96386-v1-A0011038_ET_AL_LYN_JRD_RULING_.doc