Here is my first take on?a few?key messages.?  I'll forward a few more along 
shortly.

It is beyond reason that the committee is focusing so heavily on a company  
that represented only a low single-digit percentage of spot market purchases 
and  whose average price was 25%-40% lower than the cost of the state,s 
average  purchase.
?
The committee appears to be basing its pursuits on politics and geography  
rather than the realities of the marketplace. Enron transactions represent 
less  than one)half of one percent of alleged overcharges, and Enron sales to 
the  state between January 18 and May 31 represented just one-tenth of the 
dollar  value of power purchases made from Los Angeles-area public utilities  
alone.
?
If the committee is truly dedicated to finding the causes of increases in  
power prices, it should look closely at what happened within the state,s  
borders. California-based public utilities, for example, sold power to the 
state  at average prices as high as $100/MWh above Enron,s average. It also 
should  examine why the Administration and PUC did not allow utilities to 
enter into  long-term contracts last year that would have saved Californians 
billions of  dollars and increased supply.
?
For the better part of five (?) years, Enron has repeatedly urged  California 
lawmakers and regulators to address the flaws in electric  restructuring that 
led to the current energy crisis. We have, and will continue  to, offer our 
resources and experience to help California secure its long-term  energy 
future.