Thanks.  It would of course be easiest to make the calls and say "pass it out 
now, as is,"  but if more is needed to fix the credit issue, want to be 
prepared to tell them how the decision needs to be modified.  If it's fine as 
is, all the better.

Best,
Jeff



	Christian Yoder@ECT
	02/28/2001 12:59 PM
		
		 To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: pgboylston@stoel.com, jbennett@gmssr.com
		 Subject: Re:

We like the Alternate Order.  It is a big step in the right direction.  Jean 
Bennett is preparing a draft letter in support which we were going to file by 
no later than Friday.  Pat Boylston and I will go over the letter and discuss 
it with Jean.  I'm not really sure we are going to want to do any surgery on 
the wording or not.  I invite Jean and Pat to give you a quick comment on 
this.  ----cgy 


From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 02/28/2001 12:58 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Calger
cc:  
Subject: 

Christian:

Could you let me know as soon as possible if 1) the proposed decision that I 
faxed you yesterday is go to go, i.e., adequately addresses our concerns 
regarding creditworthiness or if 2) we want to recommend some additional 
provisions?  If we want to recommend additional provisions, could you let me 
know what those are?  I want to make a run at getting this deal done at the 
CPUC ASAP,and would like to push Peevey to get Davis to have the PUC pass it 
out at their next meeting. But need to know if it's good as is or needs some 
tweeking.  Thanks very much.

Best,
Jeff