Great question.  If you think it would be useful, I can back channel to Loretta and find out.  I'm of the view that this letter is more to refute Angelides, so that his wild assertions don't go unanswered in the court of public opinion.  Perhaps the letter should be addressed to Angelides, instead.  

On the other hand, I think it is also useful to make it known to the press and the public that the PUC has the regulatory tools, processes, etc. necessary to permit customers broad latitude to manage their own energy needs on the one hand, and ensure that there's not the sort of massive cost-shifting to which Angelides refers on the other.  In the public's view this has been painted as an either/or issue. Either we end direct access, or granny faces death and destruction.  And that's just not the case. In fact, I think it can be argued that the scenario Angelides paints just isn't in the cards, period.  

But I may be missing the mark with all this and am open to other views.  Let me know if you'd like me to find out if Loretta thinks the letter would help her. Could find that out in pretty short order.

Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:ek@a-klaw.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:46 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Suspension Date


Has anyone ever stopped to ask Loretta whether the letters are helpful or not?  Two things occur to me.  First, it is not becoming for a commissioner to be taking actions consistent with the urgings of industry -- particularly if you're a Democrat.  Second, it has always struck me that what she needs is some form of record support, not political pats on the back in one-page letters.  I am asking you these questions not judging the proposal to send a letter .... but I've never understood what they're supposed to do for her and I honestly would like to understand.

E

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:33 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; wbooth@booth-law.com; dominic.dimare@calchamber.com;
cra@calretailers.com; ek@a-klaw.com; mikahl@ka-pow.com;
jrredding@aol.com; drothrock@cmta.net; vjw@cleanpower.org;
djsmith@s-k-w.com; dhunter@s-k-w.com
Subject: RE: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Suspension Date


FYI.  Note below that even the mighty and powerful Power Authority's own
crackerjack analysis asserts that there is still a net short (despite
DWR contracts and DA "stampede"), which should leave one to believe
that, contrary to Angelides' letter, the more the DA the better. Which
further supports Loretta Lynch's response to the Angelides' letter that
DA reduces the amount of spot power DWR has to buy.
Best,
Jeff
CONSUMER POWER AND CONSERVATION FINANCING AUTHORITY 
Pace of Power Authority Renewable Portfolio Agenda is Slowed 
Quite possibly the most significant action taken at the October 19
Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority (Power Authority)
was its inaction on contracts proposed for approval. The Power Authority
has aggressively pursued a broad renewable portfolio, with the intent to
approve contracts as soon as possible. 
Instead of approving a number of contracts on its October 19 agenda, the
Power Authority deferred calendared decisions on request for bids until
its November 2 meeting, acknowledging that no action can be taken until
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) rate agreement stalemate has
been resolved. 
Chairman Freeman stated that the Public Utility Commission's rejection
of the rate agreement has created an obstacle for the Power Authority to
exercise renewable contracts, to contract for peaker generation and/or
to implement demand side programs. The Power Authority relies upon DWR's
credit to fund these programs, and until a rate agreement is finalized
the Power Authority cannot sign contracts. 
Freeman indicated that the Power Authority has signed letters of intent
to purchase output from 14 biomass facilities in the Central Valley, as
well as 400 MW generated by wind. 
With the Current Glut of Contracts, Why Do We Need Additional Reserves? 
Kellan Flukinger, Senior Advisor to Chairman Freeman and Laura Doll,
provided a detailed presentation explaining why he believes the Power
Authority must contract for additional renewable and peaking generation.
Flukinger believes that despite direct access and the current glut of
electricity supplied in long-term contracts, there still appears to be a
net short of a few thousand megawatts within the State. 
Flukinger concluded that the State still is at the mercy of electric
generators who are not subject to PUC regulatory authority and who have
no real obligation to build and maintain new facilities or to serve
customers within the State. He believes that the short-term contracts
and spot purchases leave the state vulnerable to price-spikes and supply
shortages. He believes that the reserve can be managed through
Time-of-Use and Real-Time-Pricing, conservation, interruptibles, demand
side management, renewables and peakers. 
Power Authority Names William Barry as Chief Financial Officer 
William Barry was approved as Chief Financial Officer of the Power
Authority at its October 19 Board meeting in Sacramento. Mr. Barry
currently works for the City of San Francisco, and has worked in the
past for the New York Power Authority.


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. 
**********************************************************************