Nice job.  Thanks.



	"Philip K. Verleger" <PVerleger@compuserve.com>
	01/24/2001 04:32 PM
		 
		 To: "INTERNET:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com" <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Conflicts of Interest

Jeff

I have never been accused of being subtle.  However, someone had to say it 
and it is better to say it now than to have it come out later.

Phil


Dear David:

        I am writing this note to you and not the committee.  I am worried
that too many of the signatories can be accused of trying use their
academic positions to achieve results desired by their consulting clients. 
I riase this issue because more than one person has told me that "Paul
Joscow is owned by Edison."  While such statements are generally wrong I
believe you need to be sensitive to the potential attack.  In particular, I
worry that our efforts will be undermined if too many of the individuals
signing the report have had extensive dealings with the state's three
largest utilities.  I can just see the headline "Apologists for utilities
offer solutions to state's energy problems."  

        You know we will be attacked after we issue the manifesto.  The
question is, will the attacks have merit.  If we were all white as the
driven snow there would be no problem.  However, under such circumstances
we would all be poor. 

        For this reason it is important to get independent academics and
non-academics with no connections to the utilities or generators to sign
the manifesto.  I fall into this later category as, I believe, do a number
of other individuals.  The addition of Solow would obviously help as would
Arrow or McFadden.  Dale Jorgenson would also be a great addition because
he has never worked or testified for these firms.  The same goes for Paul
Krugman.  On the other hand, Pual brings some heavy baggage.  

        I understand it is important to have as many names attached to the
manifesto as possible.  However, Paul's name may hurt.
 
Phil