There is 4 proposed decisions that came out today. The CPUC is set to vote on 
them tomorrow.  Here is a quick overview:

1) Two decisions address how much money is collected for going forward 
electric energy costs and how much of that is paid to CDWR. Average rates are 
to increase 3c/kWh.  Further the AB1x  1 c/kWh is to continue.   Thus, the 
total increase, relative to rates in effect in year 2000,  is 4 c/kWh 
($40/MWh). Lynch was very unclear how this rate would be implemented for 
residential customers (a tiering proposal will be heard separately and take 
30-45 days to implement).  One of these decisions addresses how to measure 
past undercollections but as far as rate increases go, they are to cover only 
going forward costs.
2) One decision addresses QF issues.  I have not seen the PD (It is expected 
out shortly).  The Wood PD revises his revised PD of last week (yes, a 
revised, revised PD) as follows:
a) Requires QFs to be paid on a going forward basis (as of 4/1/01). Utilities 
to pay within 15 days upon presentation of an invoice.  No help for past due 
amounts, however.
b) Change the SRAC energy index from Topock to Malin.  Such a change will 
lower the SRAC energy by &4 c/kWh8.  This is a 15% to 25% hit to SRAC 
relative to the status quo, which is based more or entirely on Topock.
c) Calls for workshops to further refine the gas basis for SRAC and address 
other factors in the SRAC formula such as heat rates and O&M factors 
d) Works with Section 390, as is, does not depend on a legislative change
i) Thus the reason why SRAC is based upon a border price index.
e) Overall cap (i.e. 7.9 c/kWh) is dropped.
The fourth decision addresses an investigation of the utility holding 
companies.  Basically the CPUC is going after utility holding companies for 
funds to reduce the past undercollections.

Alan Comnes

Further Notes taken by Sue Mara during the press conference:

Lynch and Wood Running the meeting

Lynch started out castigating FERC for the "failure to act", sellers for high 
prices forcing CA into this action.  Has some charts in the press package.  
Talked about how wonderful the Govs proposals have been.  Said net short is 
34%.  Sellers "have us over a barrell" for those sales.  Attorney Gen 
continues investigation of the sellers. These are all for going forward costs 
-- this doesn't address the "$ for the hot dog, which is being taken care of 
in Sacramento."  She said these proposals ensure reliability and allow 
Treasurer to issue bonds.  Continues to castigate FERC throughout the call. 
Wants new appointments to FERC from the states -- "our cries have fallen on 
deaf ears"

Lynch announced the following votes for tomorrow:

1.  Wood's proposal -- modified -- Order the IOUs to pay the QFs beginning 
4/1 on a going forward basis only.  Modified existing formula in Section 390 
(Legislative change to this section did not pass yet).  Shifts the gas index 
from Topoc (where Wood says the prices are being mnipulated) to Malin, where 
prices have been more stable.

2. Sets the CA Procurement Adjustment -- Orders the IOUs to pay the DWR for 
purchases.  At one point she said that the order would be for all power for 
purchased by the state beginning Jan 19; at another point she said that the 
payments are for going forward costs. "It's time to pay the power bills for 
California."  CPA calculated based on the "residual" method, rather than the 
proportional method.  Payments to DWR made on the proportional method, 
however.

3.  Lynch alternate setting a 3 cents/kWh increase in accordance with AB 1X. 
(The ALJ decision said no rate increase.) Makes the 1 cent temp charge 
permanent (didn't say if its additive with the 3 cents) Believe this covers 
ALL needs on a going forward basis.  According to  ABX 1, small customers 
with 130% over baseline get no increase, small customers with 200% increase, 
get a 9 % increase -- the rest get socked, I guess.  Adopted TURN's 
accounting proposal.  Will look at rate design in a future proceeding.  Takes 
IOUs 30-45 days to charge the rates; will conduct a rate design proceeding 
during that time period (see # 5).

4. Orders an investigation into the Utility holding company structure to see 
if it is best for the public utilities.

A new proceeding was also identified.

5.  Lynch is issuing an Assigned Comissioner ruling proposing a new rate 
structure. (I presume to have rates that increase greatly with more use)  
Need information from DWR to calculate rates and DWR has not yet provided 
it.  Described the need to have a record on this. As mentioned in #3 above -- 
would expect this to be comepled with a decision in 30- 45 days.

In one of the above orders, Lynch said that she orders the utililities to go 
after sellers using all legal means for the unjust and unreasonable prices.

I'm still listening.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854