Q: Greetings: Hope everyone had a pleasant 4th. I've read the respective Burton and Hertzberg language on amending AB 1X. The Burton language looks cleaner and simpler, though there may be reasons to include some of the Hertzberg language, too. I'm proposing to the group the following as potential amendments to the bond bill. I would appreciate your feedback. The amendments would be as follows: Customers who were on Direct Access when DWR started buying power (Jan. 17th? ), and are still on Direct Access when the bill passes, should be exempt from paying for the bonds. In short, customers should not be forced to pay for power twice--once from
Propose a subject line
A: Bond Leg Language, etc.

Q: Further to our discussions about our EPNG capacity: Our research had resulted in an opinion that there is little value associated with PG&E's (northern CA customers) recall rights on Block III capacity. While it was not part of the original settlement, the 24 hour RE-recall rights to the shipper of record appear to give PG&E a DAILY call on capacity at best. Because we have pieced this opinion together based upon rulings in various proceedings, we would like a more formal regulatory/legal opinion of the mechanics of the RE-recall provision that has been developed over time. Is this something that either of you can provide or should it go to Randy? The results of this inquiry will set the tone of our next round of dicussions with EPNG. By the way, still waiting on their written reponse to our letter..... I think they have bigger fish to fry. Please advise. Stephanie
Propose a subject line
A: Block III Recall Rights

Q: Dear Fellow Sisters, I urge you to visit the following website: www.rawa.org It is dedicated to informing the world about the repression and persecution of women under the Taliban in Afganistan. The picture gallery slide show is not for the faint of heart. I was so moved that I had to send a monetary contribution. I just hope it helps to end all of their suffering. Those BASTARDS!!! Sylvia
Propose a subject line
A: RAWA

Q: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, issued a ruling today on the EPA Section 126 Rule. (As brief background, the 126 Rule would have required compliance with more stringent summer-season NOx caps starting in May 2003 in several northeast and Midwest states) The Order states: "It is Ordered that EPA's Section 126 Rule is remanded as to all cogenerators, but vacated only as to those cogenerators classified as electric generating units ("EGUs") under the rule that supply equal to or less than one third of their potential capacity or equal to or less than 25 MW to the grid for sale per year." Translation: This part of the order appears to "vacate" or completely throw out the 126 rule for small cogen units (under 25 MW) or cogen units selling less than 1/3 into the grid. For all other cogenerators, the court remands the rule to EPA for re-working, consistent with some of the court's earlier objections about EPA's handling of cogens. Impact: EPA will need to go back and formulate rules for cogens altogether, so there is currently no NOx compliance schedule in place for cogen units. EPA will need to start from scratch for smaller cogens. "It is Further ordered that as of May 15, 2001, the date of this court's decision, the three-year compliance period for emissions limitations applicable to EGUs under the Section 126 Rule is tolled, pending EPA's resolution of the remand of EGU growth factors ordered by this court." Translation: This more significant part of the order "tolls" -- or puts on hold -- compliance with the 126 Rule for ALL ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS (EGUs) until EPA resolves EGU growth factor issues that the court identified in its May 15, 2001 ruling.
Propose a subject line
A:
Court Decision on NOx - EPA Section 126 Rule