----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/15/2001 10:51 AM -----

	Lynn.A.Lednicky@dynegy.com
	05/15/2001 07:34 AM
		 
		 To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
		 cc: sryan@aesc.com, hoffman@blackstone.com, bbailey@duke-energy.com, 
john.harrison@elpaso.com, rachael.king@elpaso.com, clark.smith@elpaso.com, 
skean@enron.com, tom.allen@mirant.com, sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com, 
randy.harrison@mirant.com, alex.goldberg@williams.com, 
Maureen.McVicker@enron.com
		 Subject: Re: Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call


Jeff,

Sorry I was unable to make the call yesterday.  Thanks for the summary.  My
comments and questions are indicated below.

Please fax a copy of Plan B to be at 713 767 6677.


     You suggest starting the "process" in Sacramento next week.  I'm not
     sure exactly what this means.  Are we saying we will have a proposal
     or that we will be advocating a process/forum to get all the right
     parties at the table?
     Did we set a time for the next call on Friday?
     With regard to the Issues list, here are a few extra items:
          need to make clear that real price signals should be sent to all
          sectors (not just those that wouldn't vote for Davis anyway) as
          soon as possible
          I cannot imagine a situation in which the IOUs are returned to
          financial stability within 3-6 months; my guess is that it will
          be at least a year
          if IOUs are returned to the procurement role, we need to make
          sure that they have the appropriate risk management tools
          (ability to enter forward contracts, options, etc.)
          if IOUs are returned to the procurement role, we also need to
          have assurances that the situation we have today won't happen
          again;  for example, if the state assigns the CDWR contracts to
          the IOUs and three years from now the market price is less than
          the contract price, what assurances does anyone have that the PUC
          will not try to make the IOUs absorb the difference
          If we want to go to a core/non-core approach, why do we need to
          wait 18-24 months;  it seems to me that we could start that
          process now
          As for legal claims and investigations, we need to make clear
          that we want to resolve all state and federal claims;  the civil
          claims present a different set of challenges for resolution
          as for discounts on receivables, I'm not ready to commit one way
          or another; however, if there are discounts they must apply to
          all market participants - not just the ones that Davis can get to
          the table.


Lynn





Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com on 05/14/2001 08:47:31 PM

To:   sryan@aesc.com, hoffman@blackstone.com, bbailey@duke-energy.com,
      Lynn.A.Lednicky@Dynegy.com, john.harrison@elpaso.com,
      rachael.king@elpaso.com, clark.smith@elpaso.com, skean@enron.com,
      tom.allen@mirant.com, sonnet.edmonds@mirant.com,
      randy.harrison@mirant.com, alex.goldberg@williams.com
cc:   Maureen.McVicker@enron.com

Subject:  Summary of Today's Call/Agenda for Tomorrow's Call


Greetings:
n order to keep everyone in the loop, the folks on today's call wanted to
send out a brief summary of the call for the benefit of those who couldn't
make it.  Apologies for any omissions, inaccuracies, etc.  Others who were
on the call please chime in if I've gotten anything wrong, or missed
anything.

Best,
Jeff

SUMMARY
   Enron, Duke, El Paso and Williams were on the call, as was Michael
   Hoffman of the Blackstone Group (the Governor's financial advisors).
   On the subject of how the group would organize itself, it was agreed
   that the calls would be open to anyone who wanted to participate.
   A smaller group consisting of Duke, El Paso, Enron, and Williams would
   take the lead on walking the halls of Sacramento, meeting with policy
   makers, and advocating whatever plan the group develops.
   Folks agreed that achieving a comprehesive solution requires a tangible
   process; that is, the principals need to get in a room, face to face,
   for however long it takes to work out a resolution.
   It was agreed that the process should start no later than the beginning
   of next week, and that it should take place in Sacramento.
   It was decided that the Legislature and the Attorney General needed to
   be brought into the process as soon as possible, i.e., next week.
   There was some discussion regarding the release today of "Plan B."  Plan
   B is a plan proposed by Democratic and Republican legislators as an
   alternative to the MOU that the Governor struck with Edison.  After that
   call I received a copy of "Plan B."  If you'd like a copy please send me
   your fax number.
   Folks on the call agreed to have the next "supplier-only" call-in
   meeting on Friday.
   Finally, Michael Hoffman said that they are hoping to have a "ratings
   agency level" presentation prepared by the end of the week.  The goal of
   the presentation is to reassure capital markets that the bonds the state
   seeks to issue are solidly backed by retail rates.

The Agenda for Tomorrow's Call with the Governor's Staff
Item #1:       The Credit Issue
   Michael Hoffman said that the Governor's office wants to start
   tomorrow's meeting discussing the creditworthiness issue.
   Hoffman said that the Governor's folks are hoping to have completed by
   the start of tomorrow's meeting a draft of an agreement between the
   California PUC and CDWR.  The agreement is designed to ensure that DWR
   gets paid for power services delivered.
   If the draft is ready, they'd like to discuss on the call tomorrow.

Item #2:       Identify the Components of a Comprehensive Solution.
   It was agreed that our group should put on the table at tomorrow's
   meeting the universe of issues that need to be included in a
   comprehensive solution.
   Enron was asked to take a first stab at what those components are.  The
   following is a brief outline, which is not intended to be definitive,
   but a starting point for discussion.
     Utility creditworthiness
        retail rates must reflect costs
     Increase supply
        streamline and otherwise reform the siting process
     Decrease demand
        establish real-time pricing
        implement demand buy-down and other conservation programs
     Create a real market
        Remove the State from the power-buying business as soon as possible
        (e.g., once new rates are in place and utilities are returned to
        creditworthiness; approximately 3-6 months)
        Return the procurement role to the utilities
        Reinstate Direct Access immediately for all customers
        Within 18-24 months, create a "core/noncore" market structure for
        electricity, similar to California's market structure for natural
        gas
     Keep the industry in the hands of the private sector
        Reject proposals calling on the State to take over transmission,
        generation, etc.
     Resolve outstanding legal claims, investigations, etc.
        Resolution requires certainty and prompt payment (understanding
        that discounts on receivables is on the table for discussion)