Greetings:  We are getting considerable traction with the idea of using a "benchmark" to  judge utility purchases, similar in concept to what's in place on the gas  side.
To oversimplify it:    1) set the benchmark  2) the utility buys for consumers and tries to beat the benchmark  3) if (at the end of the year) the utility has beat the benchmark, it shares  the profits with consumers; if the benchmark wins, the utility shares the  losses with consumers  4) the PUC performs no "after-the-fact" reasonableness; no "second-guessing"  California likes the idea and is now looking to Enron to come up with what  the benchmark ought to be.
I talked to Calger a bit about it today and he  suggested that I get together with you guys.
As always, time's short.
Are  you available on Monday?
Thanks,

Getting the PUC off the Utilities Back for Purchases
Greetings: We are getting considerable traction with the idea of using a "benchmark" to judge utility purchases, similar in concept to what's in place on the gas side.
To oversimplify it: <NUMBER>) set the benchmark <NUMBER>) the utility buys for consumers and tries to beat the benchmark <NUMBER>) if (at the end of the year) the utility has beat the benchmark, it shares the profits with consumers; if the benchmark wins, the utility shares the losses with consumers <NUMBER>) the PUC performs no "after-the-fact" reasonableness; no "second-guessing" California likes the idea and is now looking to <COMPANY> to come up with what the benchmark ought to be.
I talked to Calger a bit about it today and he suggested that I get together with you guys.
As always, time's short.
Are you available on Monday?
Thanks,
second guessing california fact reasonableness ought talked available monday thanks end year profits consumers benchmark similar traction idea using number puc place gas oversimplify