Yes, it's technically true, but it doesn't seem relevant.  It's a 
technicality.  That is, if at the end of the contract, UC/CSU goes to another 
provider, the rules would require Enron to "de-DASR," after which the new 
provider would submit the new DASR to switch the customer over.  The utility 
stands in the middle of all this.  I don't think this equates to what UC/CSU 
is claiming the problem is.  Might be viewed as a bit "cute" by the judge.

Also, the legislation "fixing" the prohibition passed our of policy committee 
today in Sacramento and is moving through the Legislature.

Best,
Jeff



	"Kristen Bird" <kb@quinnemanuel.com>
	03/22/2001 04:40 PM
		 
		 To: <jeff.dasovich@enron.com>
		 cc: "Michael Lifrak" <mtl@quinnemanuel.com>
		 Subject: Revised declaration


Please review and let me know if you have any comments, esp. para. 12.  This 
was Mike Smith's suggestion.

 - 0347511.02