Jeff:

1.	Yes, very likely.

2.	415.421.4143

3.	I've been faced with implementing DA deals this last week.  I've heard
two marketers say that there will be no "exit fees" -- i.e., no
responsibility for utility debt or past or forward DWR costs.  Is this a
commonly held view (or fantasy) among marketers?

Evie

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:32 AM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Final Filing of App for Rehearing


Thanks, Evie.

1) If someone writes a decent appeal, might you folks be interested in
signing?
2) Do you have Michael's # where I can reach him tomorrow.  Sorry for
the bother.  And if you'd like to hear about what we're thinking about
regarding QFs, be happy to share it with you as well.

Be safe,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:ek@a-klaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Final Filing of App for Rehearing


Hi Jeff:

1.    Don't know at this point what if anything we'll do.  We haven't,
as you undoubtedly seen, taken a lead on DA issues.  We do, however,
have another case up our sleeve that would aid DA should it come to be.
More when that develops.

2.    Yes, Michael does QF work.  He typically works with the QFs who
have contracts to sell power; I work more on the consumer side with the
QFs who build primarily to self-serve.    (In other words, he looks more
a power generation, I look more at end-user issues.)  Certainly feel
free to call him.  He's in DC today at the RTO workshops, but I believe
he'll be here tomorrow.

Hope you're safe and well.

E

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Final Filing of App for Rehearing




Hi Evie:

Two quick things:

1) My understanding is that the PUC has denied the applications for
rehearing.  There's a group that is fixing to take it to the court of
appeals level--can't see any downside ( a) argument is that the PUC
erred in its decisionmaking--no record, no facts, no evidence, etc., and
that it needs to go back to the drawing board and get the process right
before it suspends anything--and b) the heavy-lifting was already done
getting the app. for rehrng prepared).  Seems like getting a chance to
re-argue at the PUC has alot of positives.  Were you planning on doing
anything?

2) I want to talk to Michael Alcantar about some interesting QF ideas,
but wanted to check with you first.  Frankly, I'm ignorant as to whether
that still occupies a big spot on his plate, if he represents the same
folks, etc., and thought I'd check with you first.

Hope (all things considered) you're doing well.

Best,
Jeff




**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************