From: susan.mara@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com, steve.swain@enron.com
Date: 2001-10-12 18:28:51+00:00
Subject: RE: CA question

Enron has continually raised the issue of a market-based approach, such as the DJ index, in lieu of a PX Credit.  And has also proposed bottoms-up calculation of T and D rates.  If you have bottom's-up, you don't need PX Credit or DJ index. We have most recently been pushing for bottoms'-up.  Some of our filings suggesting a marketbased index are still sitting out there in cases that have not yet been resolved.  Others, such as the 98 and 99 RAP cases, have been closed. So, our proposal is still out there, but has never been accepted by the CPUC.  It is not approporiate to "withdraw" such proposals.  I fully expect that the CPUC to continue to ignore our proposal.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff   [Mara, Susan]  
Sent:	Friday, October 12, 2001 10:16 AM
To:	Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve
Subject:	RE: CA question

Recognizing that it was Sue's idea (though I'm not sure, Sue, if you're referring to the DJ index or the bottoms-up approach), isn't it also true that Harry submitted some testimony more recently regarding the DJ index method, and didn't ARM more recently submit some bottoms-up testimony, comments, etc.?

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mara, Susan  
Sent:	Friday, October 12, 2001 12:13 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve
Subject:	RE: CA question

All,

I think I actually was the one who proposed it in a 1998 "RAP" case three years ago.  The case is long closed and our suggestion was not accepted.  Therefore, we don't have to worry about it. If we like the idea, we would have to find a way to propose it anew -- if we don't like the idea, we just fail to bring it up again.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff  
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 9:13 AM
To:	Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve; Mara, Susan
Subject:	RE: CA question

We did recommend using the DJ index.  But subsequent to that, I believe we filed as part of the "ARM" coalition, recommending a bottom's-up approach.  Is that right Sue?  However, I don't think it's accurate to say that we "withdrew" the DJ index recommendation.  Both our original DJ recommendation, and the bottom's up recommendation, are still sitting at the PUC.  I think that's how things currently stand.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:05 AM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	FW: CA question


FYI
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:51 AM
To:	Mara, Susan; Swain, Steve
Subject:	FW: CA question

Steve --

We did originally file that the replacement for the PX Credit should be the DJ Index.  My recollection is that we did withdraw this argument, however I've include Sue Mara on this to double check.  If we haven't, I'd guess that is no longer URM's position?

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Swain, Steve  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 10, 2001 4:54 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	CA question

I spoke with Mary Lynne today, and she said that once upon a time (after the PX expired) we filed something asking the CPUC to make the DJ index a substitute for the PX credit.  Does this ring a bell?  And the more important question -- did we ever withdraw that request?  Thanks.