From: drothrock@cmta.net
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Date: 2001-07-11 10:45:00+00:00
Subject: Re: Sher Shops Alternative Edison Bailout Plan

worse for SCE and generators, who have to eat the small guy share of the 
undercollection
between them. No transmission sale.

D

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> better or worse than ours?
>
>
>                     Dorothy
>                     Rothrock             To:     Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
>                     <drothrock@cm        cc:
>                     ta.net>              Subject:     Re: Sher Shops 
Alternative Edison
>                                          Bailout Plan
>                     07/11/2001
>                     12:20 PM
>
>
>
> 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.