call me unreasonable.  i can take it.  been called worse, though, of course, 
coming from you, it hurts more.




"Schultz, Don" <dks@cpuc.ca.gov> on 08/31/2000 11:13:48 AM
To: "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com>
cc:  
Subject: RE: FW: current events




chicken and egg problem--I think I'd rather try to stimulate customer demand 
for these products? (which in many applications are cost-competitive to 
purchased power, even with piracy stand-by rates of UDCs), and then 
simulanteously get/put pressure on reducing stand-by rates. So---your 
position, to answer your question, is unreasonable.

-----Original Message----- 
From: jdasovic@enron.com [mailto:jdasovic@enron.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:54 AM 
To: dks@cpuc.ca.gov 
Subject: RE: FW: current events 


Nope, not at this point.? Rather than start with money, we'd rather start 
with getting the rules (i.e., the IOUs) fixed so that there ain't regulatoy 
roadblock after roadblock standing in the way of deployment.? Sound 
reasonable? 



"Schultz, Don" <dks@cpuc.ca.gov> on 08/31/2000 10:24:12 AM 

To:?? "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com> 
cc: 
Subject:? RE: FW: current events 



so I see ENRON remains in support of PPP extension; what about using these 
funds to help buy down the costs (to consumers) of micropower technologies, 
such as customer-side of the meter fuel cells and microturbines? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: jdasovic@enron.com [mailto:jdasovic@enron.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:43 PM 
To: dks@cpuc.ca.gov 
Subject: RE: FW: current events 

Don:? See attached from today's WSJ. 

(See attached file: Efficiency bill running into opposition from 
governor.doc)