From: wanda.curry@enron.com
To: wes.colwell@enron.com, lynne.ruffer@enron.com
Cc: d..steffes@enron.com
Date: 2001-10-01 22:48:56+00:00
Subject: FW: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us
 What We're Owed for the PX Credit


Wes,
 
FYI.  

Jeff Dasovich met with SCE to discuss settlement of  Enron's PX claims.  Nothing was agreed to, but I wanted to make certain you were aware of this meeting.  It is interesting that all of SCE's comments dealt with their under collection and the DWR costs.  I have not continued to monitor current tariff assumptions.  However, I do not believe estimates for the resolution of these issues are currently included.   As I understand things, it remains anybody's guess as to what will be required of direct access customers, much less how much of the under collection SCE will be allowed to recover.  Regulatory Affairs is working closely with the desk to completely understand the impact of future regulatory decisions and work to obtain the best result for Enron.  

I will make sure you and Mary Lynne stay informed re these discussions.   If you would like to discuss, just call. 


Wanda

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff  
Sent:	Monday, October  1, 2001 3:56 PM
To:	Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Tribolet, Michael
Subject:	Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit

Talked to John Fielder (SVP at the utility) this morning in an attempt to determine if Edison will come around and pay us the PX credit they owe us.

Summary of our offer:
Edison pays us 90% of what they owe us as of 01.17.01.
Payment structure: Edison pays us 10% immediately, with an agreed to (speedy) payment schedule for the remaining 90%.
In return, we drop our complaint against Edison at the PUC.
In return, we agree to a bottoms-up approach retroactive to March 1 to replace the current PX Credit/Residual CTC framework.

Fielder said that he didn't see any show-stoppers in our proposal, but had to check back on his end.  However, there were three additional issues that he wanted to add to any deal:
Some agreement regarding payment of Edison's undercollection (this would cover any of our DA customers who were bundled services customers pre-January 17). We agreed that this would only be an issue to the extent that the Legislature and/or the PUC agreed that Edison should get authority to recoup its undercollection in rates.
Some agreement on DWR stranded costs.  John expressed the view that DWR bought power under the assumption that the customers who've recently gone DA would be there to take the power, and now that they've left, they should contribute in some way to any stranded costs. I told John that this issue is a hornet's nest, that we were better off leaving it out, but we'd consider his proposals.
Some agreement on forebearance.  I told John that if Edison agrees to pay us, it didn't seem that forebearance would be off the table.

We agreed to touch base at the same time Wednesday morning.  The idea is that he'll get back to me with Edison's reaction to our proposal; and we'd get back to him on Edison's proposals.

Might be useful to determine whether we want to continue the discussions.  While John seemed very inclined to work something out, all signals are that the Legislature isn't inclinded to bail Edison out next week.  In which case, Edison could be in bankruptcy in a couple of weeks, which would presumably nullify any agreement we might reach with them. On the other hand, if the Legislature pulls a rabbit out of a hat, an agreement might have real value.

Any comments folks have on 1) Edison's proposals and 2) whether it makes sense to continue discussions on Wednesday are appreciated.  Seems that, at a minimum, if we agree to consider Edison's proposals, then our payment should go from 90 cents to 100 cents on the dollar.

Best,
Jeff