I'm sorry that I can't make a conference call at this time, but if others
can please go ahead without me and I'll catch up. Yes, I'm in favor on
balance. I'd like GSPP (through Heather and Annette) to retain primary
administrative control of all publicity.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: gramlr@pjm.com [mailto:gramlr@pjm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:27 AM
To: hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu; gramlr@pjm.com;
whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com; doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu;
amosher@appanet.org; lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu; jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Subject: RE: Draft program

Tomorrow at 4 EDT sounds good to me but I'm not sure we're ready.  I'd like
to
make sure all of our sponsors like the idea of coordinating with IBER and
UCEI.
What say you, sponsors?  The co-sponsorship decision affects our decisions
on
place, topics, and speakers, becase IBER and UCEI would need to get involved
right away.

I spoke with Borenstein last night.  Shapiro's initial idea was exactly what
we're planning.  They appreciate and respect the fact that we've done most
of
the legwork.  They'd like to be part of it and it sounds like they would
consider it a favor if we included them.  IBER has a subgroup called the
Competition Policy Center which is a program meant to exploit the incredible
concentration of antitrust economists at UC Berkeley.  I can certainly
imagine
ways the school could benefit from a stronger connection with CPC and UCEI,
who
are so widely respected and are doing public policy.  If Lee thinks its
worth
potentially losing a bit of limelight on this conference for the long run
benefits of building resources and connections on campus, I'm all for it.
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Cameron [SMTP:hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:48 PM
> To:   gramlr@pjm.com; whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com;
> doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu; amosher@appanet.org;
> lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu; jeff.dasovich@enron.com
> Subject:      Re: Draft program
>
> Dear All,
>
> After listening to the various viewpoints and concerns expressed in our
> last conference call, I believe that the panel options listed in Option 3
> of Rob's draft might be most effective in producing the type of discourse
> that we are seeking.
>
> I propose that we schedule a conference call for this Friday afternoon,
> September 1, at 4PM EDT. I mentioned that I have reserved the Krutch
> Theater (max.capacity 375) for the week of November 13-17. I have since
> been informed that I can only hold the whole week through Wednesday,
> September 6, therefore, it will be important to narrow the options down
> very soon if we can.
>
> Best wishes,
> Heather
>
>
>
> At 06:44 AM 8/30/00 -0400, gramlr@pjm.com wrote:
> >Shall we try to talk again Monday?  I think I will talk to Borenstein to
see
> >what the Haas folks have in mind.
> >
> >I tried to capture everyone's comments.  Allen, you might want to explain
> more
> >about your panel suggestions since I didn't do them justice.  As you'll
see I
> >took the liberty of offering a new characterization of the panels that I
> >didn't
> >bring up on the call.  Everything on there is offered as a strawman to be
> >criticized and changed.
> >Rob <<Draft  program.doc>>
> >
> >Rob Gramlich
> >PJM Market Monitoring Unit
> >(610) 666-4291
> >gramlr@pjm.com
> >
> >
>
> Heather Cameron, Events Coordinator
> The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy
> University of California, Berkeley
> 2607 Hearst Avenue
> Berkeley, CA  94720
> Tel: 510-642-9437
> Fax: 510-643-9657
> GSPP home page: http://gspp.berkeley.edu