It was a masterpiece.  


From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/07/2001 01:00 PM
To:	Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

No problem.  To be honest, I was concerned--given how wide-ranging it was--that I might step in something unintentionally.  Please let me know if I do/did.  Also, keep in touch with how the issues go with them, since they are clearly trying to use the reg. issues as leverage, and in that regard, often offering up worst-case scenarios.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Smith, Mike  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:52 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

great job with uc-csu.  thanks.


From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/07/2001 12:49 PM
To:	James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:	Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/ENRON@enronxgate, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

Quick adder:  It appears that the utilities took a hard line on the amendment issue in their written comments, which is no surprise.  Utilities position is obviously extreme but it means there's likely to be a signficant fight over the issue.  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:39 PM
To:	Mara, Susan
Cc:	Dasovich, Jeff; Frazier, Lamar; Blachman, Jeremy; Smith, Mike
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

After the PHC today, we should have a better feel where the parties are and what the discussions will provide for.  Sue, can you make sure that Jeremy and team have a synopsis and outline of next steps.

Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Smith, Mike  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:10 PM
To:	Mara, Susan
Cc:	Dasovich, Jeff; Steffes, James D.; Frazier, Lamar; Blachman, Jeremy
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

thanks.  this is really important to the restructures we are working on.


From:	Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/07/2001 12:07 PM
To:	Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:	Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/ENRON@enronxgate 
Subject:	RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments

SCE and PG&E have raised these questions.  The questions came up at a meeting with the utilities on Oct 2 and again on OCt 25 -- SCE went so far as to say that in a response filed last week, I believe. The questions arise because, once you have a date cutting off direct access -- what can be allowed thereafter and what can't?  Once DA, always DA? (we say) What consitutes a written DA "contract".  (the utilities ask) You'd think the utilities would have better things to spend their time on.  Actually, SCE most likely benefits (pays off its debts sooner) if it can capture more customers. These are similar to issues Commissioner Wood is investigating and may result in a decision along those lines that goes to the Commission for a vote.  We are opposing as are 95% of the customer groups.  A pre-hearing conf is being held at 2 pm today with Wood's friendly ALJ to talk further about these type of issues.  I will keep you apprised.

Sue

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Smith, Mike  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:47 AM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.
Cc:	Frazier, Lamar; Blachman, Jeremy
Subject:	CA Extenstions/Amendments

I heard that the CPUC and/or the utilities have taken the position that any amendment to a contract after 9/20, like a pricing amendment, is a new contract entered after 9/20 and therefore invalid.  Is this true?  Does this hold any water?