RE: Comment re Clarification of Interruptible Stipulation -Reply

I don't think the splitting of accounts applies here.  The entire account would be direct access or bundled.  The change in firm service would reduce the discount that the customer receives.  Personally, I don't see anything wrong with providing this option.  It seems fair to say that if you increase the firm service level you can't decrease it later in order to be consistent with the rate being closed to new customers. While this is not technically a new customer, any decrease in the firm service level wou
ld be similar to adding a new customer.

Don Fellows
Southern California Edison
818-302-8175


-----Original Message-----
From:	MIKE JASKE [SMTP:MJASKE@energy.state.ca.us]
Sent:	Monday, July 14, 1997 1:42 PM
To:	BBarkovich@aol.com; j.price@cpuc.ca.gov; lss@cpuc.ca.gov; meb@cpuc.ca.gov; seancasey@cpuc.ca.gov; pstohl@dbsr.com; MCBRIP@hewm.com; amb2@pge.com; fellowda@sce.com; dcroyle@sdge.com; mjaske@sna.com; cmKehrein@ucdavis.edu
Cc:	ceyap@aol.com; m.mcnamara@cpuc.ca.gov; jsqueri@gmssr.com; aln2@pge.com; keblercl@sce.com; demand@sna.com
Subject:	Comment re Clarification of Interruptible Stipulation -Reply

Reviewers of McBride E-mail Suggestion:

Two brief thoughts.

First, I believe virtually all parties support the idea that direct
access cannot be permitted if a single account is proposed to be split. 
The rationale is that there would be too many ambiguities about how to
allocate imbalances between the pieces.  How would that principle apply
here?

Thank you.

.