----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/11/2001 07:56 PM -----

	Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com>
	01/11/2001 05:19 PM
		 
		 To: Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@govadv.com>, Mike Day <MDay@GMSSR.com>, Bev 
Hansen <bhansen@lhom.com>, Jeff Dasovich <jdasovic@enron.com>, Susan J Mara 
<smara@enron.com>, Joseph Alamo <JAlamo@enron.com>, Paul Kaufman 
<paul.kaufman@enron.com>, David Parquet <David.Parquet@enron.com>, Marcie 
Milner <mmilner@enron.com>, Tim Belden <Tim.Belden@enron.com>, Rick Shapiro 
<rshapiro@enron.com>, Jim Steffes <james.d.steffes@enron.com>, Alan Comnes 
<acomnes@enron.com>, Chris Calger <ccalger@enron.com>, Mary Hain 
<mary.hain@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Extraordinary Session - Update

MEMORANDUM RE FIRST EXTRAORDINARY COMMITTEE SESSION

From:  Sandi McCubbin
            Mike Day

January 11, 2001

Note: This memo will supplement the committee analysis which you will
receive by separate fax.


ABX1-5 Keeley re the governance of the ISO and PX was discussed first.
A number of possible amendments were discussed by members.  Suggested
amendments included extending the term of members beyond one year,
increasing the number of members beyond 3, whether there should be
senate confirmation of ISO and PX board members, or at least voting
representation for the legislature on the Energy Oversight Board which
will approve the ISO/PX members.  There was also discussion of whether
FERC would approve of this new governance structure.   Another
discussion centered on whether the positions should be full time, as
opposed to part time, and how to define &affiliated8 in conjunction with
the bill,s ban on members of the ISO and PX being affiliated with a
market participant.

Support for the bill:  Consumers Union, EOB on behalf of the
administration, CalPIRG, PX, TURN, UCAN, ORA, Coalition of Utility
Employees.

Opposition:  ISO, which raised issues regarding incompatibility with
FERC orders and concern that the bill would lead to lengthy litigation.
They suggested that if the ISO and PX boards were appointed solely by
the California governor that FERC would not find that legally sufficient
to be &independent8.


ABX1-6 Dutra/Pescetti  addressed retained utility generation assets and
commission regulation of same.  The bill as written is merely a clean up
to clarify that the CPUC would retain jurisdiction over utility
generation after it is valued for purposes of calculating CTC*until and
unless the CPUC gives permission for the plant to be sold under Section
851.    The discussion evolved into a lengthy inquiry over the different
regulatory schemes for utility and non-utility generation.  Assemblyman
Leonard questioned whether it was efficient to have a market where a
portion of the generation was regulated and another portion
unregulated.  More and more members skirted the subject of attempting to
regulate the non-utility generators within the state.  In supporting
testimony, CPUC President Lynch essentially asked for jurisdiction over
such generators, stating that CPUC inspectors were denied access to an
AES plant at Redondo Beach for 9 hours during an ISO alert yesterday.
Chmn. Wright asked Lynch to assemble a list of the regulatory powers she
would seek.

In support:  CPUC, TURN, UCAN, CUE, PG&E, SCE

PG&E agreed with Lynch and also argued that the Legislature should
revisit the exemption regulation for marketers and non-utility
generators contained in Code section 216(I).   PG& also had suggested
technical amendments, which were not released, which dealt with
confirming that Section 367 still requires market valuation and that the
CPUC can set the ratemaking for such retained assets.

We have talked with the author about meeting with him after the
amendments are available.  No amendments were voted on for any of these
bills until they are brought up in the Senate.  Thus there was only
limited discussion of amendments.