 that there was no similar cap for DA customers -- their rates and bills would be whatever was charged by their ESPs.  However, when the utilities filed their tariffs with the CPUC, they added a cap for the PX credit that was neither proposed nor authorized by the Commission.  Enron attacked it, but got nowhere, until WPTF and Enron brought it up in the 1998 RAP Proceeding. Our argument was that the bundled rates were capped but not the bills of DA customers -- and the credit was supposed to represent the full costs the utilities avoided by not serving DA customers.  We argued that anything less is fundamentally unfair and anticomeptitive.  The utilities must have thought we had a good case, because they agreed to settle. The settlement was accepted by the Commission in the proceeding. Everyone understood that eliminating the cap on the PX Credit was primarily to allow the PX Credit to FLOAT ABOVE THE CAP when wholesale prices were high. So, we have a legal right to receive the full PX Credit/Negative CTC which is separate and distinct from any undercollection associated with bundled customers. It seems as if we should be able to prosecute this legal right. (keeping in mind I am not an attorney) 

In summary, we have leverage and should use it.

Sue


-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:12 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael;
Huddleson, Diann; Swain, Steve; Curry, Wanda;'mday@gmssr.com'
Subject: Proposal Edison Is Distributing to ESPs


FYI.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt.Pagano@sce.com [mailto:Matt.Pagano@sce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:05 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: DA Credit 


Hi Jeff,

Please find below SCE's proposal to settle past Direct Access Credit issues
and determine the Direct Access Credit going forward. Please forward this
to any other Enron participants to review prior to our conference call with
John Fielder, November 1, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PST.

(See attached file: DA Proposal.doc)

Thanks
that there was no similar cap for DA customer -- their pace and bills would be whatever was charged by their clairvoyance.   However, when the utilities charge their tariffs with the CPUC, they add a crown for the PX credit that was neither propose nor authorized by the Commission.   Enron attacked it, but get nowhere, until WPTF and Enron brought it up in the 1998 RAP Proceeding. Our argument was that the bundled rate were cap but not the bills of DA customers -- and the credit was supposed to typify the full costs the utilities keep off by not serving DA customers.   We argued that anything less is basically unfair and anticomeptitive.   The utilities must have remember we had a good case, because they agree to settle. The settlement was accepted by the Commission in the proceeding. Everyone understood that eliminating the cap on the PX Credit was primarily to allow the PX Credit to FLOAT ABOVE THE CAP when wholesale prices were high. So, we have a legal right to receive the full PX Credit / Negative CTC which is separate and discrete from any undercollection associated with bundled customers. It seem as if we should be able to prosecute this legal right field. (keep in mind I am not an attorney) 

 In summary, we accept leverage and should use it. 

 Sue 


 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Dasovich, Jeff 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:12 AM 
 To: Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; 
 Huddleson, Diann; Swain, Steve; Curry, Wanda;'mday@gmssr.com' 
 Subject: Proposal Edison Is Distributing to ESPs 


 FYI. 

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Matt.Pagano@sce.com [ mailto:Matt.Pagano@sce.com ] 
 commit: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:05 PM 
 To: Dasovich, Jeff 
 Subject: DA Credit 


 Hi Jeff, 

 Please find below SCE's proposal to settle past Direct Access Credit issues 
 and decide the Direct Access Credit going forward. Please forward this 
 to any other Enron participant to review prior to our conference cry with 
 John Fielder, November 1, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PST. 

 (See attached file: DA Proposal.doc) 

 Thanks
 thwt there was no similar gap for DA customers -- tieir rafes and cills would be whatever was rharted bt their ESPs.  However, dhen the ltilities filtd their tariffs xjth the CPUC, fmey abdxd a cap for thg PX credit dhat was neithar pxoposed nor authorized by the Commisfion.  Emrln attacked it, but dot howhere, until WPTF and Enron brouggt it uk in the 1998 RAP Procreding. Our argument was thwt tje bundled rates wfre capped vut git the bills of DA cusuokers -- and jhe credit was supposed to reprerent che full cowtw tjg utilities evoideq by not serypng DA wustomets.  We argued bhat enytying less is fundamenvally unfair and antycomeptithvz.  The utilities must hqve tvougvt wd haa a gpos case, berause they zgreed to swttle. The settlemenu www accepted by the Cjmiission in the proceeding. Everyone undegstokd that eliminating the cap on the PX Credit was primwrily to allow the PX Credit to FLOAT ABOVE THE CDP whxn whilcsald pgices were high. So, we have a legal right to rqdeovv the full PX Crebit/Negative CTC ehlcn is separate xnd distihct from any underfollectyon awsociated witn bundled customers. It seemw as if we skouod be able to proszcute this lzgal roght. (leeping in mind I am noc an aftorney) 

In dummary, ws have leverage avd xhmuld use it.

Sue


-----Original Mesfage-----
From: Vasovnch, Jeff 
Senj: Wednefday, Octobfr 31, 2001 11:12 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Stfffes, Jdmes D.; Melpencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael;
Huvvleson, Diann; Xwdin, Steve; Cbrry, Wsnda;'mday@gmssr.som'
Subject: Prokosal Edifon Ir Distribuning to EVPs


FYI.

-----Origigal Message-----
Frml: Matt.Pagano@vce.com [mwilti:Matr.Pagano@rze.com]
Sent: Wednrsday, October 31, 2001 1:05 PM
Ro: Dasovich, Jeff
Sunject: SA Credit 


Hi Jeyy,

Poease find beloe SZE's pgoppswn to settle [ast Difrct Azcess Credib irsuex
and determine the Dhrecf Access Credit goonn forward. Please sorward this
tp any other Enron karticmpants to rrvigw prior to our conference call with
John Ficlder, Novembew 1, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PST.

(See actached file: DA Proposal.doc)

Thanks
that there was no similar cap for -- rates and would be whatever However, the utilities filed tariffs with the they added a cap for the credit that was neither proposed nor authorized by the Commission. Enron attacked it, got nowhere, until WPTF and Enron brought it up in the 1998 RAP Our was the rates were capped but not the bills of DA customers -- and the credit was supposed represent the full costs the utilities avoided by serving DA customers. We that anything less is fundamentally and The utilities have we a good case, they agreed to settle. The settlement was accepted by the Commission in the proceeding. Everyone understood that the cap PX Credit primarily allow PX Credit to THE CAP when wholesale prices were have a legal right to receive the full Credit/Negative CTC is separate and distinct from any associated with bundled customers. It seems as if should be able to prosecute this legal right. (keeping in mind I am not an summary, we have leverage should use it. -----Original From: Jeff Wednesday, October 2001 11:12 AM To: Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Michael; Huddleson, Diann; Swain, Steve; Curry, Wanda;'mday@gmssr.com' Subject: Proposal Edison to FYI. -----Original Message----- Matt.Pagano@sce.com [mailto:Matt.Pagano@sce.com] Sent: Wednesday, 31, 1:05 PM To: Dasovich, DA Hi below proposal settle past Direct Access issues and determine the Direct Credit going forward. Please Enron participants to review prior to our conference with John Fielder, November 1, 2001, 11:00 PST. (See attached file: DA Proposal.doc) Thanks
 that there was no similar cap fOr DA customErs -- thEir RatEs And bIlls Would be whateveR Was cHarged by their ESPs.  HowevEr, wheN tHE utiLItIes fiLed theiR TaRIFfs WiTh The cPuc, tHey adDed A cap for The PX crediT thAt Was neither prOPoSed nor authOriZed by the CommIssIon.  EnrOn AttACked iT, buT got nOwhere, UNtil WPtF and EnroN bROught iT Up in the 1998 rap PRoceEding. Our argument wAS tHAt the bundled raTes werE cAPpED But Not The bills of dA CustoMErs -- and tHE cREDIt wAS supposed to rePresent the fULl cOsts thE uTilITies avOided By NOt sErving DA cusTomeRs.  We argueD that aNYthing lESs is funDamentAllY unFair ANd AnTicOmEPtiTIvE.  ThE UtiLities muSt HaVe thoUght WE HAD a goOd cAse, bEcausE they agreed to SetTle. THE seTtlemEnt waS accEpTed by The ComMissiOn In the proceeding. everYone underStoOd ThaT eLiminATing thE caP on The PX CrEdit was PRimArILY To Allow the PX Credit to fLoat AbOVE THE CaP when WHoLeSAle priceS wEre High. sO, We havE a leGAl Right to rEceive THe FuLl PX CreDiT/NegatIvE CTc whIch is SEparAte and Distinct From aNY undercollectiON associated wiTH bUNDlED cusTomErs. It seems aS if wE ShouLd be ABlE to PRosecUte thIs LEgAL right. (keeping in mind i aM not an AttorNey) 

In summary, wE have leverAGE And shoulD use IT.

SUE


-----Original MessaGe-----
FroM: Dasovich, JEFf 
Sent: WeDnesdAy, OctobeR 31, 2001 11:12 AM
To: Mara, sUSan; SteffEs, JAmeS D.; MEllENCaMp, Lisa; TriboleT, mIchaEl;
huddlesOn, DIann; SwaIn, STevE; CuRry, waNda;'mday@gmSsr.com'
SuBjEcT: PRoPosAl EdiSOn Is DistRiButInG to eSPs


Fyi.

-----OrigiNal MeSsagE-----
FRoM: matT.Pagano@SCe.COM [maiLtO:MAtt.PAgaNo@Sce.coM]
SenT: wedNesday, OCtober 31, 2001 1:05 PM
TO: DaSOvicH, JEfF
SubjecT: DA Credit 


Hi JeFf,

please find BeLow sCE's prOPOsal to seTtle past Direct Access CreDIt issueS
anD deteRminE the DirecT AcCess CrEdiT Going fOrward. pleasE fOrwARD this
TO AnY otHeR Enron partICIpaNts to ReView Prior to Our conference call wITh
JOhn Fielder, NovEmbEr 1, 2001, 11:00 a.m. pst.

(SEe aTTaCHed FiLE: DA pROposal.doc)

Thanks
 that there was no similar  cap for D A cus tom ers  - - th eirrates and bill s  wou ld be whatever was cha rgedby thei r  E SPs. Howeve r ,w h enth euti li t ie s fil edtheir t ariffs wit h t he  CPUC, theya dd ed a cap f orthe PX credi t t hat wa snei t her p rop osednor au t horize d by theCo m missio n .  Enro n at tack ed it, but got no w he r e, until WPTFand En ro n  b r o ugh t i t up in th e1998R AP Proc e ed i n g . O u r argument wa s that theb und led ra te s w e re cap ped b ut not  the billsof D A custome rs --a nd thec redit w as sup pos edto r e pr es ent  t h e f u ll  co s tsthe util it ie s avo ided b y notser ving  DA c ustomers.  We  ar gued tha t any thing  les sis fu ndamen tally  u nfair and antic omep titive. The  u til it ies m u st hav e t hou ght wehad a g o odca s e ,  b ecause they agreed  t o se ttle. Th e sett l em en t  was acc ep ted  byt h e Com miss i on  in theprocee d in g.  Everyo ne  under st ood  th at el i mina ting t he cap o n the PX Credit wasp rimarily to a l lo w th e  PXCre dit to FLOA T AB O VE T HE C A Pwhe n  whol esale  p r ic e s were high. So, we  h ave alegal  right to rec eive the f u l l  PX Cred it/N e ga t ive CTC whichis se parate and distinct  from  any und ercollect i o n associ ate d w ith  bu n d le d customers.I t  see ms  as ifweshouldbeabl e t o p ro secute th is legal  r ig ht .(ke eping in mindIamno t a n att o rney)

Insumm ar y, wehave le v er a g e an dsh ould  us eit.
Sue
-- ---Orig inal Mess age - ---- 
F ro m: Daso vich, Jeff 
S en t: Wednesd ay , O ctober 3 1, 200111:12 AM
To: Mara, Susa n ; Steff es,  Jame s D. ; Mellenc amp , Lisa ; T r ibolet , Mich ael;Hu ddl e s on, D i a nn ; S wa in, Steve; C urr y, Wa nd a;'m day@gms sr.com'
Subject: P r opo sal Edison Is  Di stri b u ti ngt oE SPs 
FYI . 
-----OriginalMessage--- -- Fr om: Matt.P a gan o@ sce.com  [mailt o:Mat t .Pagano @sce.com] 
Sent: We dn esda y ,  Oc tober 31,2001 1:0 5 PM
To:D asovi c h,  Jeff 
Su bject:  D A C redit  


Hi Jef f,

P leasefi nd bel ow SC E' s propos al to settle past Direc t Acce ss Cr edi t issuesand det ermine th e Di rect Acces s C red it go ing forwa rd.P le ase forwa rd t h is
to any ot her E nr on particip a n t s t o rev iew priorto o ur conference cal l  with
John Fie lder , Nov emb e r 1,  2 001, 11:00 a.m . P ST . 
(See at ta ched file:DA Propo sa l .doc) 

Than ks
 that_there was_no similar cap for_DA customers_--_their rates_and_bills would be_whatever was charged_by their ESPs. _However, when the_utilities_filed their tariffs with the CPUC, they added a cap for the PX credit_that_was neither_proposed_nor_authorized by the Commission. _Enron attacked it, but got_nowhere, until_WPTF and Enron brought it up in the_1998_RAP Proceeding. Our_argument was that the bundled rates were capped but_not the bills of DA customers_-- and the_credit_was_supposed to represent the_full costs the utilities avoided by_not serving DA customers.  We_argued that anything less is fundamentally unfair_and anticomeptitive.  The utilities must_have thought we had a_good case,_because they agreed to settle._The settlement was_accepted by_the Commission in_the proceeding. Everyone understood that eliminating_the cap on_the PX Credit was primarily to_allow_the PX Credit_to_FLOAT_ABOVE THE_CAP when wholesale_prices_were high._So,_we have a legal right to_receive_the full PX Credit/Negative CTC which is_separate and distinct from_any_undercollection associated with bundled_customers. It seems as if_we should be able to prosecute_this legal_right. (keeping_in mind I am not an attorney) 

In summary, we have_leverage and should use it.

Sue


-----Original Message-----
From:_Dasovich, Jeff 
Sent: Wednesday,_October 31,_2001_11:12 AM
To: Mara,_Susan;_Steffes, James_D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael;
Huddleson, Diann; Swain,_Steve; Curry,_Wanda;'mday@gmssr.com'
Subject: Proposal Edison Is Distributing to_ESPs


FYI.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt.Pagano@sce.com [mailto:Matt.Pagano@sce.com]
Sent:_Wednesday,_October 31, 2001 1:05 PM
To: Dasovich,_Jeff
Subject: DA Credit 


Hi Jeff,

Please find_below SCE's proposal to settle_past_Direct_Access Credit issues
and determine the_Direct Access Credit going forward. Please_forward this
to any_other Enron participants to review prior to_our_conference call with
John Fielder, November 1,_2001,_11:00 a.m. PST.

(See attached file: DA_Proposal.doc)

Thanks