No problem.  Thanks for the response.  I understand the need to keep powder dry.  Talked to Hertzberg this morning.  The 3rd extraordinary ain't sounding like it's going to be a winner.  Hope to talk soon.
 
Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:EK@a-klaw.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:50 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Draft Application for Rehearing


Jeff:
 
Sorry, I just got to dealing with this.  I assume it's being filed today, and I don't have client authority to support.  We could, however, file a response.  
 
E

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:34 PM
To: ek@a-klaw.com
Subject: FW: Draft Application for Rehearing


 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:27 PM
To: 'eve@a-klaws.com'; ''Bill Dombrowski' '
Subject: FW: Draft Application for Rehearing


Greetings Eve and Bill:
This has been forwarded to Delainey and Dorothy.  It's originating with AreM.  Delainey's distributing to some, I'm distributing to others.  The Chamber's already agreed to join.  If we're to have any hope of a)m aintaining DA and b) eliminating any chance of a retroactive date, seems that we'll need as many folks signing on as possible.  Please see attached.  We hope that you can join.
 
All the best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:08 AM
To: ARM; Gary Ackerman; Vicki Sandler; Anderson, Robert; Merilyn Ferrara; Max Bulk; John Yurkanin; Steve Huhman
Subject: Draft Application for Rehearing


Attached for your review and comment is a draft application for rehearing of the Commission's Thursday Decision 01-09-060 suspending the right of direct access.  Although we have prevailed (at least for now) on the issue ofr etroactivity, the decision still violates various provisions of state andf ederal law.  If any party wishes to preserve the right to legally challenge this decision, it must file an application for rehearing within ten days.  The attached draft is tentatively dated September 28, meaning that it would be filed next Friday.
 
The primary reasons cited for why rehearing should be granted are asf ollows: 


The Decision violates procedural due process guarantees.

The failure to hold hearings violates Public Utilities Code section 1708.5(f).

 The Commission's reliance on material outside the record violates due process.

 The Decision violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

 The threatened retroactivity is contrary to law and in excess of the Commission's authority.

 The Commission acted contrary to law and in excess of its authority.  

 The Decision's purported findings are not supported.

The Commission has impermissibly converted a ratemaking proceeding into a quasi-legislative proceeding.

Although WPTF members have not had an opportunity to consider whether they wish to support such a filing, WPTF is included as a named party in the attached because of the fact that AReM and WPTF have jointly made numerous other filings in this proceeding.  WPTF members will need to determine if they wish to support this effort.
 
I look forward to seeing your comments.  Thanks, and have a gtoodw eekend!
 
Dan
 
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:   (818) 596-2201
Fax:  (818) 346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com>


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. 
**********************************************************************