It may, or may not, be as obvious to you as it is to me, but it seems like 
the issue of standy rates/charges for current and new self-generators has 
been brought back "on the table", as one of many effects of AB970.? The first 
attachment is a copy of ORAs comments (filed yesterday) that focuses on AB970 
effects on DG/EE public purpose programs; the other attachments are media 
accounts of the effects of summer 2000 interruptions on participants and 
non-participants in various ISO/UDC "load management/demand respoisnivesness" 
programs, incluidng SCE's intended use of "windfalls" from "penalties" paid 
by those customers who were expected to cut loads but didn't.

Basic question--does Enron have a position on standby rates/charges (e.g., 
should these rates/charges be lowered---now?)

? <<ORA Comments on ESRA for 2001 plans_Final.doc>>  <<interrupt policy and 
practice_SCE windfall DJN 9_00.doc>>  <<Interrupt_SCE participant drop outs 
DJN 8_00.doc>>  <<Interup_Oil refinery drop outs DJN 8_00.doc>> 

 <<Interupt_SCE_Inglewood dropout LAT 9_00.doc>>  <<Interrup_Air Quality 
conflicts SJMN 8_00.doc>> 

 - ORA Comments on ESRA for 2001 plans_Final.doc
 - interrupt policy and practice_SCE windfall DJN 9_00.doc
 - Interrupt_SCE participant drop outs DJN 8_00.doc
 - Interup_Oil refinery drop outs DJN 8_00.doc
 - Interupt_SCE_Inglewood dropout LAT 9_00.doc
 - Interrup_Air Quality conflicts SJMN 8_00.doc